CA Foundation Exam > CA Foundation Questions > Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing hi...
Start Learning for Free
Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.
Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:
Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:
- a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.
- b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.
- c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.
- d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.
Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
| FREE This question is part of | Download PDF Attempt this Test |
Most Upvoted Answer
Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, ...
Explanation:
The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor. Here's why:
1. Minor's Capacity: Ankit is a minor, as he is only 17 years old. According to the Indian Contract Act, a minor is a person who has not attained the age of majority (18 years in most jurisdictions). Minors are not considered to have the legal capacity to enter into a valid contract.
2. Representation: Ankit falsely represents himself to be of 22 years in order to enter into the agreement. However, misrepresenting one's age does not change the fact that Ankit is still a minor and lacks the legal capacity to enter into a contract.
3. Property Transaction: Ankit agrees to sell his property to Praveen and receives a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance. As a minor, Ankit does not have the authority to transfer or sell property. Any agreement related to the sale of property by a minor is void ab initio (void from the beginning) and holds no legal validity.
4. Disposal of Funds: Ankit uses a portion of the advance payment to buy an imported car and spends the rest on a pleasure trip. As a minor, Ankit's actions regarding the funds received are not legally binding. He does not have the capacity to make such transactions, and any disposal of the funds does not affect the void nature of the agreement.
5. Legal Consequences: As the agreement is void ab initio due to Ankit's status as a minor, Praveen has the right to sue for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. Praveen is not bound by the agreement and can seek legal remedies to recover the amount paid.
In conclusion, the agreement between Ankit and Praveen is void ab initio as it involves a contract with a minor. Ankit lacks the legal capacity to enter into a valid contract, and Praveen has the right to seek a refund and damages.
The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor. Here's why:
1. Minor's Capacity: Ankit is a minor, as he is only 17 years old. According to the Indian Contract Act, a minor is a person who has not attained the age of majority (18 years in most jurisdictions). Minors are not considered to have the legal capacity to enter into a valid contract.
2. Representation: Ankit falsely represents himself to be of 22 years in order to enter into the agreement. However, misrepresenting one's age does not change the fact that Ankit is still a minor and lacks the legal capacity to enter into a contract.
3. Property Transaction: Ankit agrees to sell his property to Praveen and receives a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance. As a minor, Ankit does not have the authority to transfer or sell property. Any agreement related to the sale of property by a minor is void ab initio (void from the beginning) and holds no legal validity.
4. Disposal of Funds: Ankit uses a portion of the advance payment to buy an imported car and spends the rest on a pleasure trip. As a minor, Ankit's actions regarding the funds received are not legally binding. He does not have the capacity to make such transactions, and any disposal of the funds does not affect the void nature of the agreement.
5. Legal Consequences: As the agreement is void ab initio due to Ankit's status as a minor, Praveen has the right to sue for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. Praveen is not bound by the agreement and can seek legal remedies to recover the amount paid.
In conclusion, the agreement between Ankit and Praveen is void ab initio as it involves a contract with a minor. Ankit lacks the legal capacity to enter into a valid contract, and Praveen has the right to seek a refund and damages.
Attention CA Foundation Students!
To make sure you are not studying endlessly, EduRev has designed CA Foundation study material, with Structured Courses, Videos, & Test Series. Plus get personalized analysis, doubt solving and improvement plans to achieve a great score in CA Foundation.
|
Explore Courses for CA Foundation exam
|
|
Similar CA Foundation Doubts
Top Courses for CA FoundationView all
Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?
Question Description
Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CA Foundation 2024 is part of CA Foundation preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CA Foundation exam syllabus. Information about Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CA Foundation 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? for CA Foundation 2024 is part of CA Foundation preparation. The Question and answers have been prepared according to the CA Foundation exam syllabus. Information about Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? covers all topics & solutions for CA Foundation 2024 Exam. Find important definitions, questions, meanings, examples, exercises and tests below for Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?.
Solutions for Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? in English & in Hindi are available as part of our courses for CA Foundation.
Download more important topics, notes, lectures and mock test series for CA Foundation Exam by signing up for free.
Here you can find the meaning of Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? defined & explained in the simplest way possible. Besides giving the explanation of
Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer?, a detailed solution for Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? has been provided alongside types of Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? theory, EduRev gives you an
ample number of questions to practice Ankit, aged 17 years, falsely representing himself to be of 22 years, enters into an agreement to sell his property to Praveen and receives from Praveen a sum of Rs. 10,00,000 in advance.Out of this sum, Ankit buys an imported car worth Rs. 5,50,000 and spends the rest on a pleasure trip to France. After Ankit attained majority, Praveen sues him for the conveyance of the property or, in the alternative, for the refund of Rs. 10,00,000 and damages. The agreement between Ankit and Praveen is:a)Void ab initio as it is a contract with a minor.b)Voidable at the option of Praveen.c)Would be valid if Ankit ratifies the agreement on attainting the age of majority.d)Valid as Ankit has sold his own property for personal use.Correct answer is option 'A'. Can you explain this answer? tests, examples and also practice CA Foundation tests.
|
|
Explore Courses for CA Foundation exam
|
|
Suggested Free Tests
Signup for Free!
Signup to see your scores go up within 7 days! Learn & Practice with 1000+ FREE Notes, Videos & Tests.
|
© EduRev
|
Education Revolution
|
|
Signup to see your scores
go up within 7 days!
Access 1000+ FREE Docs, Videos and Tests
Takes less than 10 seconds to signup