Desai, J. - (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 15th 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', 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. The plaint proceeds to state that in pursuance of the agreement the plaintiff carried out her part of the contract, but the defendant in or about February 1947 engaged another artist for the role allotted to the plaintiff; that the defendant called upon the plaintiff to attend shooting and or rehearsals, but when the plaintiff attended she was not given any work and was kept idle. The plaintiff states that in March, 1947, the defendant falsely alleged breaches of the agreement on the part of the plaintiff and wrongfully terminated the contract of service and refused to pay to the plaintiff or her father the salary due to her. The plaintiff states that the agreement was entered into by her father for and on behalf of the plaintiff and that the same was for her benefit and that she was ready and willing to perform her part of the agreement, but the defendant prevented the plaintiff from earning her salary during the remainder of the term whereby she suffered damages to the extent of Rs. 8,708-10-0. The damages are computed on the footing of the difference between Rs. 9,500, being the amount agreed to be paid to the plaintiff under the agreement dated January 15, 1947, and the sum of Rs. 791-5-4 which was the amount received by the plaintiff from the defendant.
(3.) BY his written statement the defendant says that the parties to the agreement were the plaintiff and the defendant. The defendant states that he has no personal knowledge as to whether the plaintiff is or at the date of the agreement was a minor. He further says : As the plaintiff states that at the date of the said agreement the plaintiff was a minor the defendant submits that the said agreement is void in law and not enforceable and the plaintiff is not entitled to maintain this suit in respect thereof. In the alternative and in the event of its being held that the agreement was arrived at between the defendant and the plaintiff's father Dhiraj Singh, the defendant will submit that the plaintiff being not a party to the agreement is not entitled to sue in respect thereof. By para. 2 of his written statement the defendant submits that the terms of the agreement having admittedly been reduced to writing, no oral evidence is admissible of the terms thereof. Without prejudice to his aforesaid contention, the defendant denies that on or about January 15, 1947, or at any time there was any oral agreement arrived at, between the defendant and the plaintiff's father Dhiraj Singh Muramal as alleged or otherwise on behalf of or for the benefit of the plaintiff. The defendant denies that the plaintiff was always ready or willing to perform her part of the agreement and says that the breach of the contract was committed by the plaintiff.;