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 15 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.) Exhibit A to the plaint is a curious document as read in conjunction with the plaint. It reads as follows : Agreement drawn and signed on January 15, 1947, between Mr. Prem Adib the Proprietor Of Prem Adib Pictures, Andheri, a film producing concern hereinafter called the producer of the one part and Miss Raj Rani residing at Pattatrey Bhuvan, Plot No. 176, Sir Bhal Chandra Road, Hindu Colony, Dadar, Bombay, hereinafter called the artist. This is to confirm and put on record the following terms and conditions arrived at between us as per our personal talk and mutual agreement. That the period of your contract will be from this day of agreement January IS, 1947, to January 14, 1948. That you will be paid a lump sum amount of Rs. 9,500 (rupees nine thousand and five hundred only) for your full period of contract in twelve equal instalments. That you will attend the office and the shooting and the rehearsals punctually as and when required. That you will attend Gramophone disk and or Track recording without any obligation to the Company for that you will neither get nor demand any extra amount as royalty or remuneration, stipend or bonus apart from the above- mentioned amount fixed. That all other terms and conditions shall be as are prevailing in agreements and contracts of like nature." At the end of the contract there appears a signature : "For Prem Adib Pictures. (Sd.) Prem Adib, Proprietor. Against that, the following words appear: I confirm and agree. (Sd.) Raj Rani. (Sd.) Dhiraj Singh. It is stated on behalf of the plaintiff that the oral agreement with the plaintiff's father was in the same terms as exhibit A and that as that agreement was not reduced to writing, the plaintiff's father is not precluded from giving evidence of the terms of that agreement merely because he has put his signature on exhibit A by way of attestation. This contention forms the subject matter of issue No. 2, which was allowed by me at the request of the parties to stand over as it appeared to me that the plaintiff's contention was prima facie correct.