The Indian Contract Act, 1872 is legislation governing the Indian framework regarding agreements and contracts. Some of its crucial sections include section 65. The section works for the restoration of the pre-accord stage in the event of disputes involving void or voidable agreements. It applies the principle of equity to prevent one party from making undue profits while the other has been deceived in such a scenario. It provides a rich understanding of Section 65, from its nexus with the Doctrine of Restitution, scope, and applicability to their exceptions, with landmark judgments supporting them.
Read to learn what is contract drafting and who a contract lawyer is.
Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
Section 65 outlines the principle of restitution. When an agreement is found to be void (legally unenforceable) or when a valid contract subsequently becomes void, any benefit or advantage received by one party under such an agreement must be restored or compensated to the other party. This provision ensures fairness and prevents unjust enrichment.
Key Elements of Section 65
Scope:
This applies to agreements discovered to be void from inception.
This applies to contracts that were initially valid but later became void.
Obligation:
The person receiving an advantage must:
Restore the benefit received.
If restoration is not possible, provide compensation to the other party.
Purpose:
To uphold equity and prevent one party from unfairly retaining benefits when the agreement or contract cannot be enforced.
Illustrations
Illustration (a):
Facts: A pays ₹1,000 to B for B’s promise to marry A’s daughter, C. At the time of the promise, C is already dead.
Outcome: The agreement is void. B must return ₹1,000 to A.
Illustration (b):
Facts: A agrees to deliver 250 maunds of rice to B by a specific date. A delivers only 130 maunds, and B retains them even after the contract becomes void.
Outcome: B must pay A for the 130 maunds delivered.
Illustration (c):
Facts: A singer, A, agrees to perform at B’s theatre for two months but absents herself after five performances. B rescinds the contract.
Outcome: B must pay A for the five performances she completed.
Illustration (d):
Facts: A contracts to sing at B’s concert and receives ₹1,000 in advance. Due to illness, A cannot perform.
Outcome: A must refund ₹1,000 to B.
Applicability
Void Ab Initio:
If an agreement is inherently void, any benefit derived must be returned.
Example: An agreement based on illegal consideration or mutual mistake.
Contracts Becoming Void:
Contracts that initially meet the requirements of a valid contract but later become void (e.g., due to impossibility or frustration).
Example: A contract to deliver goods that are later destroyed by natural disasters.
Partial Performance:
Even in cases of partial performance, the benefiting party is obligated to pay for the part performed.
Example: Goods delivered partially before the contract becomes void.
Exceptions to Section 65
While Section 65 promotes fairness, it does not apply in the following cases:
Illegal Agreements:
If an agreement is void due to illegality, and both parties are equally at fault (pari delicto rule), restitution may not be enforceable.
Example: An agreement to smuggle goods is void, and no restitution is granted.
No Advantage Gained:
If the party in question has not received any benefit under the agreement or contract, restitution is not required.
Voluntary Gifts:
Benefits given voluntarily without expectation of return are not subject to restitution.
Elevate your career with a 4-month Certification in Contract Drafting & Negotiation, focusing on AI tools. Gain expertise in drafting contracts across sectors, handling negotiations, and mastering contract life cycle management.
The Doctrine of Restitution under the Indian Contract Act, 1872
The doctrine of Restitution is an essential principle under the contract that maintains fairness and equity in contracts when they become void or ineffectual. This doctrine strictly insists that when one party under an agreement that becomes void has benefited or accrued from the benefit in any other manner, they are liable to pay back that amount or recover from the other party to ensure there is no enrichment without cause. This doctrine is embodied in Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and provides a foundation for equitable relief claims in contractual disputes.
Meaning of Doctrine of Restitution
The Doctrine of Restitution is a legal principle designed to restore the status quo by preventing the unjust enrichment of one party at the expense of another. It obligates a person who has received an advantage under a void or voidable contract to return it to the other party or compensate for the benefit received. Restitution is a remedy grounded in equity, aiming to achieve fairness and justice.
Objectives of the Doctrine
The key objectives of the Doctrine of Restitution are as follows:
Preventing Unjust Enrichment: To avoid the enrichment of one party at the expense of another.
Restoration of Original Position: To put both parties in the same position they were before entering the void or voidable agreement.
Equitable Justice: To achieve justice by compensating the aggrieved party for any loss incurred on account of an invalid agreement.
Encourage fair contractual practices: To discourage parties from taking undue advantage of others through invalid agreements.
Check out the top contract law firms.
Landmark Judgement related to Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act
Below are some pivotal cases that have helped in the development and understanding of Section 65 and the Doctrine of Restitution in Indian contract law:
1. Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903)
Facts:
Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, mortgaged his property to Brahmo Dutt (through his attorney Mohori Bibee) to secure a loan.
Dharmodas sought to set aside the mortgage, claiming he was a minor at the time of the agreement.
Issue:
Whether a minor, after obtaining a benefit under a void agreement, is obligated to return the advantage?
Judgement:
The Privy Council held that an agreement with a minor is void ab initio.
The Doctrine of Restitution does not apply where the agreement is void due to incapacity (such as minority).
Dharmodas Ghose was not required to return the mortgage money.
Significance:
This case established that the Doctrine of Restitution does not override specific legal provisions (e.g., minors’ incapacity to contract).
2. Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v. Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd. (1943)
Facts:
A Polish company (Fibrosa) paid an advance to an English company for machinery delivery.
Due to the outbreak of World War II, the contract became frustrated.
Issue:
Whether the advance payment should be returned under the Doctrine of Restitution.
Judgement:
The court ruled that restitution is mandatory in cases where one party benefits without fulfilling obligations.
The English company was ordered to return the advance payment.
Significance:
The case highlighted that the frustration of the contract triggers restitution to prevent unjust enrichment.
3. Sadasiva Panda v. Prajapati Panda (2017)
Facts:
The defendant agreed to sell his property to the plaintiff for Rs. 5000, with an advance of Rs. 2600. However, the defendant sold the property to someone else, refusing the plaintiff's ownership.
Issue:
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to restitution of the advance payment under Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act due to the defendant's wrongful actions.
Judgment:
The court applied the Doctrine of Restitution, ruling that the defendant's actions were wrongful. The plaintiff was entitled to the restitution of the Rs. 2600 advance payment, as the agreement was rendered void by the defendant's refusal to transfer ownership.
Summing Up
Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, forms the bedrock of contract law, ensuring equity and fairness when the agreements or contracts are void or become void. It embodies the Doctrine of Restitution, thus preventing unjust enrichment and restoring parties to their former position. Since it is applied to a wide field and has an equity basis, this provision holds the key to maintaining the sanctity of the contractual relationship and justice in civil disputes.
Section 65 Of The Indian Contract Act, 1872: FAQs
Q1. What is Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act?
Section 65 refers to the obligation of returning or compensating any advantage received under a void or voided agreement or contract. Its essence is based upon fairness in disallowing unjust enrichment.
Q2. What is the relationship between Section 65 and the Doctrine of Restitution?
It is founded on the Doctrine of Restitution, whereby a benefit acquired under a void or voidable contract must be returned or restitution made to avert one party gaining at the other's expense.
Q3. When does section 65 apply?
This section applies when an agreement is held to be void or where the contract is frustrated, becomes impossible, or for any other cause becomes void. Under it, the benefit is restored to the original party.
Q4. Are there any exceptions to Section 65?
Yes, Section 65 does not apply in cases of illegal agreements, where both parties are equally at fault, or where the benefit was voluntarily given without expectation of return.
Q5. Can restitution be claimed in case of a minor's contract under Section 65?
No, agreements involving minors are void, and restitution is not applicable to such contracts, as the minor cannot be bound by the agreement.
