RAJ RANI Vs. PREM ADIB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS suit raises a question of importance so far as contracts of service entered into on behalf of minors are concerned. Contracts involving service by minors may be of considerable value in cases like the one before me where the minor is allotted the role of a Cinema Star or is employed as an artist for the production of a film of considerable value.

(2.) THE plaintiff in this case is a minor girl who has brought this suit suing by her next friend, her father and natural guardian, one Dhirajsingh Muramal, for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,708-10-0 being the amount of damages alleged to have been suffered by her by reason of a breach of a contract entered into by Dhirajsingh Muramal with the defendant for and on her behalf. Paragraph 1 of the plaint states as follows : On or about January IS, 1947, the defendant orally agreed with the plaintiff s father named Dhiraj Singh Muramal, to employ the plaintiff as an artist in the defendant's concern called the Prem Adib Pictures for a period of one year commencing from the 15th January 1947 at the salary of Rs. 9,500 to be paid in twelve equal monthly instalments. As the plaintiff was and is a minor the said Dhiraj Singh Muramal entered into the said agreement on behalf of and for the benefit of the plaintiff. It was inter alia agreed between the said Dhiraj Singh Muramal and the defendant that the plaintiff was to attend the defendant's office, shootings and rehearsals as and when required by the defendant. THE terms of the said agreement were recorded in a writing, a copy whereof is hereto annexed and marked 'a',

(3.) BY his written statement the defendant says that the parties to the agreement were the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant states that he has no personal knowledge as to whether the plaintiff is or at the date of the agreement was a minor. He further says : As the plaintiff states that at the date of the said agreement the plaintiff was a minor the defendant submits that the said agreement is void in law and not enforceable and the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this suit in respect thereof. In the alternative and in the event of its being held that the agreement was arrived at between the defendant and the plaintiff's father Dhiraj Singh, the defendant will submit that the plaintiff being not a party to the agreement is not entitled to sue in respect thereof.