Question

Chaaru is justified in challenging the sale transaction because:

• A. Bandita is of unsound mind and is not in a position to make rational decisions.
• B. Though Bandita is eighteen year old, she will be treated as a minor, as Chaaru is her guardian.
• C. Though Bandita is eighteen year old, she cannot sell the land without the permission of her mother.
• D. Though Bandita is eighteen year old she should not be treated like a person who has attained the age of majority.
• A. He was deceived by Bandita who misrepresented her age.
• B. He honestly believed that Bandita was empowered under the law to sell the land.
• C. He was an innocent person who had paid the full price of the land to Bandita.
• D. Both (a) and (b).
• A. Bandita has attained the age of majority.
• B. Bandita is mature enough to make rational decisions regarding her own affairs.
• C. The sale transaction was beneficial to her interest and will enhance her financial status.
• D. None of the above.
• A. Ajay should be allowed to recover the money because even though there is no contract, Bandita and Chaaru should not be allowed to unjustly benefit from Ajay’s money.
• B. Ajay should be allowed the possession of the land because Chaaru can always decide to approve the transaction between Ajay and Bandita.
• C. Ajay should not be allowed to recover because he induced Bandita, a minor, to sell the land.
• D. None of the above.
• A. If Ajay is allowed to recover the money, that will defeat the law framed for protecting the minors against fraudulent persons.
• B. If Ajay is not allowed to recover that will cause him injustice as he has not paid off the entire sale price.
• C. If Ajay is allowed to recover, Chaaru will benefit from both the money and the land.
• D. None of the above.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is B

Step 1: Refer to Rule A

Rule A defines a minor as a person below 18 years of age.
However, if a guardian administers the property, the age of majority is raised to twenty-one.

Step 2: Apply the Rule to Bandita's Case

Bandita is exactly 18 years old, so under normal conditions she would be considered a major.
However, the facts clearly state that her mother, Chaaru, is her guardian, and Bandita acted without her guardian’s permission.
Therefore, under Rule A, Bandita is still a minor for the purposes of this property transaction.

Step 3: Eliminate Incorrect Options

(a) is incorrect — there is no evidence of Bandita being of unsound mind.
(c) is partly true but does not explain the legal justification based on age and guardianship.
(d) is vague and does not refer to the specific rule about guardianship extending the age of minority.
(b) clearly matches Rule A and the facts — hence, it is the correct answer.

% Final Answer \[ \boxed{\text{(b)}} \]

Answer 2

Step 1: Refer to Rule C

If the other party is deceived by a minor into believing they are not a minor, and gives money or any benefit — it cannot be recovered.
But if the other party can prove they were misled or acted in good faith, it strengthens their legal position.

Step 2: Apply to Ajay’s Case

Bandita is a minor under Rule A (because of the guardian).
Ajay believed Bandita was capable of contracting and did not know she was a minor.
He paid the full amount in good faith.
If he can show (a) he was deceived, and (b) he honestly believed she was authorized, he may recover.

Step 3: Eliminate Incorrect Options

(a) and (b) both are required to support recovery under Rule C.
(c) is insufficient — innocence alone doesn’t guarantee recovery.
Hence, (d) is the best legal inference.

\[ \boxed{\text{(d)}} \] %Quick tip

Answer 3

Step 1: Refer to Rule A

Rule A defines a minor as a person below 18.
However, if a guardian administers the minor’s property, the age of majority becomes 21.
Bandita’s mother, Chaaru, is her guardian. Hence, legal majority is not reached at 18.

Step 2: Legal Requirement to Defend a Sale

To validate a contract made without guardian’s permission, Bandita must show she has full legal capacity.
That means proving she is no longer under guardianship — i.e., she has attained the age of majority (21 in her case).

Step 3: Eliminate Incorrect Options

(b) Rational maturity is not enough — legal majority is required.
(c) Benefit from the contract does not override the law on minors.
(d) is invalid — (a) is the only legally sound defense.

% Final Answer \[ \boxed{\text{(a)}} \]

Answer 4

Step 1: Understand Rule B and C

Rule B: Contracts with minors are not legally binding.
Rule C: Even if money is exchanged, it cannot be recovered unless there is fraud or unjust enrichment.

Step 2: Apply to Ajay’s Situation

Ajay paid \rupee 50 lakhs for land but did not receive it.
Though the contract is void, keeping the money without returning it results in unjust enrichment.
Courts may allow recovery under principles of equity — to prevent minors/guardians from unfairly profiting.

Step 3: Evaluate Options

(a) is correct — aligns with legal principles of restitution and fairness.
(b) is incorrect — Chaaru already disapproved; post-hoc approval isn't valid.
(c) is incorrect — even if Ajay induced, unjust enrichment allows claim recovery.
(d) is wrong — (a) is best supported by law and facts.

% Final Answer \[ \boxed{\text{(a)}} \]

Answer 5

Step 1: Revisit Key Legal Principles

Rule B: Contracts with minors are void and unenforceable.
Rule C: Even if money is paid, it is not recoverable unless the minor committed fraud or unfair enrichment results.
Equity may allow recovery to prevent unjust gain.

Step 2: Facts Recap

Ajay paid \rupee 50 lakhs to Bandita.
Chaaru, the guardian, blocked the land transfer.
Thus, Bandita and Chaaru retain both the money and the land — unless recovery is allowed.

Step 3: Analyze Options

(a) is incorrect — recovery doesn't defeat protection laws, it ensures justice and prevents enrichment.
(b) is incorrect — Ajay has already paid the full amount, not partially.
(c) is correct — Chaaru keeps both land and money if recovery is disallowed, which is inequitable.
(d) is incorrect — (c) is correct.

% Final Answer \[ \boxed{\text{(c)}} \]