Court caseAIR 1949 Bom 215

The plaintiff, a minor film actress, was engaged by the defendant film producer. The agreement was signed by her father on her behalf and provided that she would act in the defendant's film for a fee. The producer later refused to employ her, and she sued through her father for breach of the contract.

The Bombay High Court (Chagla CJ) held that there was no enforceable contract. If the contract was with the minor, it was void for want of capacity under s. 11 as explained in Mohori Bibee. If it was with the father, it was void for want of consideration: the only consideration offered for the producer's promise was the minor's promise to act, and a minor's promise is a nullity which cannot be consideration for anyone's promise. The minor could not sue.