Competency of Parties, and the Age of Majority

Two details in sub-section (2) that examiners like. The day of birth counts as a whole day, and majority is attained at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary, not at the hour of birth on that day. So a person born on 1 January 2008 is a major from the first moment of 1 January 2026.

A note on the name. India Code titles the Act "The Majority Act, 1875". Almost every textbook and every exam answer calls it the Indian Majority Act. Either name will be understood; the statute's own title has no "Indian" in it.

The old exception, and why it is gone. Textbooks printed before 2000 say that where a guardian of a minor's person or property has been appointed by a court, or the minor's property is under the superintendence of a Court of Wards, majority is postponed to twenty one. That proviso was omitted by the Indian Majority (Amendment) Act 1999, and the age is now eighteen for everyone domiciled in India. A student who writes the twenty one rule as current law is writing law that was repealed.

"According to the law to which he is subject." The phrase matters for a person domiciled outside India, whose majority is governed by the law of their own domicile, not by the Majority Act.

Test 2: soundness of mind

Section 11 requires the party to be of sound mind and section 12 defines what that means. It is a test applied at the moment of contracting, not a diagnosis, and it is taken up in [Persons of Unsound Mind, and Persons Disqualified by Law].

Test 3: not disqualified by any law

The third test is open ended: section 11 does not list the disqualifications, because they come from other statutes and from the general law. The recognised categories are alien enemies, foreign sovereigns and diplomats, convicts, insolvents, and corporations acting beyond their powers. These too are taken up in the chapter on section 12.

A worked example

Aarti is seventeen years and eleven months old. She is in the second year of a degree, runs a small business selling handmade jewellery, and is by any ordinary measure more capable than most adults of judging a bargain. She agrees to buy a laptop from Bhaskar for sixty thousand rupees on credit.

• Is she of the age of majority? No. Section 3 of the Majority Act fixes eighteen and she has not completed eighteen years.
• Does her evident capability help? No. Section 11 asks about age, not about maturity. The rule is a bright line precisely so that Bhaskar does not have to assess her.
• Was she of sound mind and free from disqualification? Yes on both counts, but that is irrelevant, because the three tests are cumulative and she fails the first.
• Result. She is not competent to contract, and the agreement is void, not voidable. The consequences are the subject of the next two chapters.

Now move the facts by one month. Aarti is eighteen years and one day old. She is competent, and the same agreement is a contract binding on her.

What it does NOT mean

"An incompetent person cannot be bound by anything." Competency governs contracts. A person incapable of contracting may still be liable under section 68 for necessaries supplied to them, and that liability is not contractual at all: it is a quasi contractual obligation against their property. See [Quasi Contracts: Obligations Resembling Those Created by Contract].

"The age of majority is twenty one where a guardian has been appointed." That was the law until 1999 and is not the law now.

"A minor can contract if the contract benefits them." Section 11 admits no such exception, and the Act nowhere grades a minor's agreements by whether they are beneficial. Whether a minor may be a transferee or promisee, which is a different question, is taken up in [The Minor's Position: Necessaries, Restitution and Ratification].

"Competency is about understanding." Only the second test is. The first is about age and the third is about status, and neither asks what the party understood.

Quick revision

• Section 11: every person is competent who is (1) of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, (2) of sound mind, and (3) not disqualified by any law to which he is subject. All three, cumulatively.
• The age comes from the Majority Act 1875, s.3(1): eighteen years, for every person domiciled in India.
• s.3(2): the day of birth counts as a whole day, and majority begins at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary.
• The old twenty one rule for court appointed guardians and Courts of Wards was omitted in 1999.
• Soundness of mind is defined in s.12; disqualifications come from other laws.
• Failure of any one test makes the agreement void, not voidable.

Test yourself

1. State section 11 and identify where the age of majority is found. Section 11 provides that every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, who is of sound mind, and who is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject. Section 11 does not fix the age itself; it comes from section 3 of the Majority Act 1875, which sets it at eighteen years for every person domiciled in India.

2. Rohan was born on 14 March 2008. From what moment is he competent by age? From the beginning of 14 March 2026. Section 3(2) of the Majority Act includes the day of birth as a whole day and deems majority attained at the beginning of the eighteenth anniversary of that day, so the hour of his birth is irrelevant.

3. A seventeen year old who is unusually mature enters a commercial contract. Is it valid? No. Section 11 fixes competency by age and not by maturity, and the three tests are cumulative, so failing the age test is enough. The agreement is void from the outset.

4. Is the age of majority still twenty one where a court has appointed a guardian? No. That proviso was omitted by the Indian Majority (Amendment) Act 1999, and the age is now eighteen in every case for a person domiciled in India.

5. Name the three tests in section 11 and say what happens if only one fails. Majority, soundness of mind, and absence of statutory disqualification. Because the section joins them with "and", they are cumulative, so failure of any single test makes the party incompetent and the resulting agreement void.