The agreement of a minor has not originated since the beginning of the entas, there can be no ratification of the agreement on his age of majority. Ratification can only be achieved through legal acts “valid by law” at the time of the Commission and at the time of ratification. Since an agreement made by minor minors is not legally valid among its minority, it cannot ratify it by reaching a majority – since it does not exist at all in the eyes of the law. To the point where a person has deliberately led someone else to accept something worthwhile by his action, he or his delegates will not be allowed, in the future, to deny precisely that fact.  This characterizes the law of Estoppel. In any event, minors are an exception to this standard and they can argue in a minority when they have distorted their age at the time of the agreement. In vainkuntarama Pillai v Authimoolam Chettiar, Madras High Court found that a minor who is unable to enter into a contract cannot take any risks and that Estoppel`s right cannot repeal it. A guardian has entered into a contract to purchase a particular property on behalf of the minor. Subsequently, the minor sued the other party for concrete benefits in order to recover his property. It has been concluded that any contract can be explicitly applied by or against the minor if it is in his favour and if the guardian who entered into the contract on behalf of the minor has jurisdiction over the matter.
This case essentially determined the doctrine of maturity under India`s contract law. The mortgage, in this case, received a decree to repay the debt. But there is evidence that led to the conclusion that the Mortgagor was a madman at the time of entry into contract, and the mortgage knew nothing about it. Under English law, it was decided that a mere act of madness could not invalidate a contract, and if the other party had knowledge of the madness, it would be invalidated on the option of the madman. Therefore, knowledge is an important factor in English law. From the outset, a minor`s agreement is a non-place, because they need providence, information and skills to enter into a legally binding agreement. With the exception of necessities, learning and the guardianship agreement, the consent of minors is a dead letter and has no influence on contractors. A minor may be admitted into the benefits of the agreement, but cannot continue to make commitments.
Since an agreement becomes compliant with the contract as long as it is concluded with the free consent of the capable parties, enforceable by law, an agreement with the “incompetent” minor is nullified or invalidated. The main questions were about the validity of the agreement. The controversies concerned whether or not such an agreement had been concluded under Sections 2, 10 (5) and 11 (6) of the Act. The second issue was whether such an agreement with a minor should be considered inconclusive or inconclusive. Finally, the question was about the examination of a minor as a “beneficiary” and the fate of those legal obligations. “What is necessary” is a relative fact that must be determined by reference to the estate and circumstances of the minor concerned.