Legal Capacity to Contract

Who is Competent to Contract? (Section 11)

For an agreement to be enforceable by law and thus become a valid contract, one of the essential elements is that the parties entering into the agreement must be competent to contract. The Indian Contract Act, 1872 specifies who is considered competent to contract.

Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 states:

"Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, and who is of sound mind, and is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject."

This section lays down three requirements for a person to be legally competent to enter into a contract.

Must be of the age of majority

The first requirement is that the person must have attained the age of majority. In India, the age of majority is governed by the Indian Majority Act, 1875.

According to Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, every person domiciled in India shall attain the age of majority on completing his age of eighteen years.

However, if a guardian of the minor's person or property (or both) has been appointed by a Court, or if the superintendence of the minor's property has been assumed by a Court of Wards, the age of majority is extended to twenty-one years.

A person who is below the age of majority is a minor. An agreement entered into by a minor is fundamentally different from agreements by other incompetent persons. The Privy Council, in the landmark case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) 30 IA 114, held that a contract entered into by a minor is absolutely void ab initio (void from the very beginning). It is not merely voidable. This is based on the reasoning that a minor lacks the capacity to contract entirely, not just the capacity to consent freely.

Consequences of a Minor's Agreement:

It is void and has no legal effect.
A minor cannot be sued on the agreement.
The rule of estoppel does not apply against a minor (a minor is not prevented from pleading his minority even if he misrepresented his age).
A minor can be a promisee or a beneficiary (e.g., receive a gift or benefit under a trust), as the contract would be void only against the minor, not in his favour.
A minor cannot ratify an agreement made during minority after attaining majority.
There is generally no obligation to return the benefit received under a void agreement, although courts may sometimes order restitution under specific circumstances under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

Must be of sound mind

The second requirement is that the person must be of sound mind at the time of entering into the contract. Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines what constitutes a sound mind for the purposes of contracting:

"A person is said to be of sound mind for the purpose of making a contract if, at the time when he makes it, he is capable of understanding it and of forming a rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests."

A person who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally of sound mind, may make a contract when he is of sound mind. Conversely, a person who is usually of sound mind, but occasionally of unsound mind, may not make a contract when he is of unsound mind.

Examples of persons who may be of unsound mind include lunatics, idiots, and persons under the influence of alcohol or drugs to the extent that it impairs their capacity to understand the contract and form a rational judgment.

Effect of Contract by Person of Unsound Mind:

A contract entered into by a person of unsound mind is generally voidable at the option of the person of unsound mind.
If the contract is made during a lucid interval (when the person is of sound mind), it is valid.
If the other party knew about the person's unsoundness of mind and took advantage of it, the contract may be treated as void.
The burden of proving unsoundness of mind is usually on the party who alleges it.

Must not be disqualified by law

The third requirement is that the person must not be disqualified from contracting by any law to which they are subject. Certain individuals are prohibited or restricted from entering into contracts by specific laws, even if they are of the age of majority and of sound mind.

Examples of persons disqualified by law include:

Alien Enemies: During a war, a person who is a citizen of an enemy country is an alien enemy. They generally cannot enter into contracts with citizens of India. Existing contracts with alien enemies are either suspended or terminated during the war.
Insolvent Persons: An insolvent person (one who is declared bankrupt by a Court) is disqualified from entering into contracts relating to their property until they are discharged. Their property vests in an Official Receiver or Official Assignee.
Convicts: A convict is a person undergoing sentence of imprisonment. While imprisoned, their capacity to contract may be suspended or limited.
Corporations: A company or corporation is an artificial person. Its capacity to contract is limited by its Memorandum of Association (the object clause) and the provisions of the Companies Act, 2013. Any contract outside the scope of its objects is *ultra vires* and void.
Married Women: Historically, married women had limited contractual capacity, but under modern law in India, married women have full contractual capacity like any other adult person.

The disqualification must be imposed by a specific law.

Example 1. Mr. Rohit, aged 17 years, enters into an agreement to sell his motorcycle to Mr. Vikas, an adult, for Rs. 50,000/-. Mr. Rohit receives Rs. 10,000/- as advance payment. Later, Mr. Rohit refuses to sell the motorcycle, and his father states that Mr. Rohit is a minor. Can Mr. Vikas sue Mr. Rohit to enforce the agreement or recover the advance payment?

Answer:

No, Mr. Vikas cannot sue Mr. Rohit to enforce the agreement or generally recover the advance payment. Mr. Rohit is a minor (under 18 years of age) and is not competent to contract according to Section 11. An agreement with a minor is void ab initio as per the principle in Mohori Bibee's case. Since the agreement is void, it is not enforceable. While courts may sometimes order restitution of benefits received by a minor under certain circumstances (e.g., if the minor is seeking to recover property he transferred), simply recovering advance payment in a void agreement like this is usually not allowed, particularly if the minor has spent the money. Mr. Rohit's father's statement is valid as proof of minority.

Example 2. Mr. Shankar, who is usually of sound mind, is suffering from a temporary bout of severe fever which makes him delirious and unable to understand things properly. While in this condition, he enters into a contract to sell his valuable stamp collection to Mr. Suresh for a very low price. Can Mr. Shankar later challenge the validity of this contract?

Answer:

Yes, Mr. Shankar can challenge the validity of this contract. Although Mr. Shankar is usually of sound mind, he was of unsound mind at the specific time he entered into the contract (due to fever-induced delirium). According to Section 12, a person is of sound mind for contracting if they are capable of understanding the contract and forming a rational judgment about its effect on their interests. If his fever made him incapable of this, he was not competent to contract at that moment. A contract made by a person who is temporarily of unsound mind is voidable at their option. Mr. Shankar can seek to have the contract set aside.

Minors' Contracts

Meaning of Minor

In the context of contract law, a minor is a person who has not attained the age of majority. The capacity to contract is determined by age, soundness of mind, and legal disqualification (Section 11, Indian Contract Act, 1872). The age of majority is the primary criterion for distinguishing a minor from an adult for contractual purposes.

Indian Majority Act, 1875

In India, the age of majority is primarily governed by the Indian Majority Act, 1875.

Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 states that every person domiciled in India shall be deemed to have attained the age of majority when he shall have completed his age of eighteen years and not before.

An exception exists: Where a guardian of the person or property (or both) of a minor has been appointed by a Court under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, or where the superintendence of a minor's property has been assumed by a Court of Wards, the age of majority for such a minor is extended to twenty-one years.

Therefore, generally speaking, a person below 18 years of age is considered a minor in India. In specific cases involving court-appointed guardians or Court of Wards, the age limit is 21 years.

Example 1. Mr. Sameer, who lives in Kanpur, is 17 years old. No guardian has been appointed for him by any Court. Is he a minor according to the Indian Majority Act, 1875?

Answer:

Yes, Mr. Sameer is a minor. He is domiciled in India and is below the age of eighteen years. Since no guardian has been appointed by a Court, the extended age of majority (21 years) does not apply to him. Therefore, according to Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875, he is a minor.

Rule: Minor's Agreement is Void Ab Initio (Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose)

A person's capacity to contract is a fundamental requirement for a valid contract under Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Section 11 specifies that a person must be of the age of majority to be competent to contract. The question of what happens when a minor enters into an agreement was definitively settled by a landmark judicial pronouncement.

Principle Established by Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose

The Privy Council case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) 30 IA 114 is the cornerstone of the law relating to minors' agreements in India. The facts involved a minor, Dharmodas Ghose, who mortgaged his property to a moneylender, Brahmo Dutt, for Rs. 20,000/-. The minor received Rs. 8,000/- but the full amount was not disbursed. The minor's mother, acting as his guardian, informed the moneylender that Dharmodas was a minor. Subsequently, the minor filed a suit praying for cancellation of the mortgage deed on the ground that he was a minor when he executed it. The moneylender argued that the minor had misrepresented his age and that the contract was voidable, or that the minor should at least repay the amount received.

The Privy Council, affirming the decision of the Calcutta High Court, held that:

A contract entered into by a minor is absolutely void and not merely voidable.
A minor is incompetent to contract, and such a contract creates no legal rights or obligations.

This established the principle that a minor's agreement is void ab initio, meaning it is null and void from the very beginning. The contract is a nullity and cannot be enforced against the minor.

Consequences of the Rule:

No liability for the minor: The minor cannot be held liable under the contract, and the other party cannot enforce it against the minor.
Estoppel does not apply: A minor is not estopped from pleading his minority even if he falsely misrepresented his age to induce the other party to enter into the contract. The principle of estoppel (Section 115, Indian Evidence Act, 1872) does not apply to a statute that renders a person incompetent to contract.
No Ratification: A minor's agreement being void ab initio cannot be ratified by the minor after attaining the age of majority. Ratification is only possible for voidable agreements, not void ones. A fresh agreement would need to be entered into after attaining majority for it to be binding.
Restitution: While a minor cannot be compelled to return benefits received under a void contract, courts may sometimes order restitution under Section 33 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (formerly Section 41), particularly when the minor is seeking relief from the court (e.g., asking for cancellation of an instrument) and the other party was unaware of the minority or was not fraudulent. However, recovery of money advanced to a minor is often difficult, especially if the money is spent.

Example 1. Ms. Kavita, aged 17, borrowed Rs. 1,00,000/- from Mr. Prakash by executing a promissory note. She misrepresented her age as 19. Mr. Prakash wants to sue her to recover the money when she fails to pay. Can he enforce the promissory note or claim the money on the basis of her misrepresentation?

Answer:

No, Mr. Prakash cannot enforce the promissory note or claim the money. Ms. Kavita is a minor, and her agreement (borrowing money and executing a promissory note) is void ab initio according to the principle in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. Since the agreement is void, it is not legally enforceable against her. Furthermore, she is not estopped from pleading her minority even though she misrepresented her age. The rule of estoppel does not override the statutory incapacity of a minor to contract. While recovery might be possible in very specific circumstances (e.g., if she still possesses the specific identifiable money and is seeking court relief), generally, a minor cannot be forced to repay money borrowed under a void agreement.

Exceptions to the Void Rule

While the rule that a minor's agreement is void is strict, there are certain situations or types of transactions involving minors that are treated differently. These are often referred to as exceptions, although some are not true exceptions to the void nature of the agreement *against the minor*, but rather situations where a minor might incur some obligation or where the contract is valid in their favour.

Contracts for necessaries (Section 65, 68)

Although a minor is not personally liable for debts, Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides that if a person incapable of entering into a contract (which includes a minor) is supplied with necessaries suited to his condition in life by another person, the person who has furnished such supplies is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of such incapable person.

Key points regarding contracts for necessaries:

Minor's property is liable: It is not the minor personally who is liable, but his estate or property. If the minor has no property, the supplier of necessaries cannot recover anything.
What are 'necessaries'? Necessaries are not limited to bare necessities of life (like food, clothing, shelter). They include goods and services required for the minor's maintenance, education, and reasonable comfort according to his standard of living or station in life. This is a question of fact depending on the minor's circumstances. Examples include education fees, medical expenses, suitable lodging and clothes, etc. Luxurious items are generally not considered necessaries.
Necessaries must be supplied *to* the minor: The goods or services must be supplied for the benefit of the minor himself.
Minor must not already have a sufficient supply: The supplier must show that the minor was in need of these items at the time they were supplied.

Section 65, which deals with restitution when an agreement is discovered to be void, is generally considered not applicable to agreements void ab initio like those with minors, especially concerning recovery of money lent to a minor. Section 68 is the specific provision dealing with necessaries supplied to an incapable person.

Beneficial contracts of service

Based on English common law and applied by some Indian courts, a contract entered into by a minor may be valid and binding *on the minor* if it is for the minor's benefit, particularly contracts related to training, education, or service that help the minor earn a livelihood or improve their skills. The contract must be beneficial to the minor as a whole, considering all its terms.

Example: An agreement by a minor to join a theatre as an apprentice actor, which includes training and payment, may be held binding on the minor if the Court finds it beneficial for his career development.

However, the scope of "beneficial contracts" is often debated, and courts examine such contracts carefully to ensure they are genuinely for the minor's overall benefit and not exploitative.

Contracts of apprenticeship

Contracts of apprenticeship, governed by the Apprentices Act, 1961 in India, are a specific type of contract for service/training. While the minor is a party to such a contract (entered into on their behalf by a guardian), the Act gives them some legal recognition. Such contracts are considered binding on the minor to the extent provided by the Act, although remedies like specific performance compelling the minor to serve may not be available; usually, only damages can be claimed in case of breach.

Minor's liability in tort

A minor is generally liable for his torts (civil wrongs) like negligence, defamation, trespass, etc. If a minor commits a tort, he can be sued and held liable for damages, just like an adult. However, it is important to distinguish between a tort arising independently of a contract and a tort that is directly connected to or arises out of a void contract. You cannot use a tort action to indirectly enforce a void contract against a minor.

Example: A minor borrows a car under a void loan agreement and negligently damages it. The lender cannot sue him for breach of contract (as it's void). The lender *might* be able to sue him for the tort of negligence for damaging the car, but this is often complex if the tort arises directly from the contractual dealing.

Estoppel

As noted earlier, the rule of estoppel (Section 115, Indian Evidence Act) does *not* apply to a minor who misrepresents his age when entering into a contract. He is not prevented from pleading his minority. Therefore, this is not an exception where a minor is bound by a contract due to misrepresentation of age.

Minor as a beneficiary

While an agreement by a minor is void *against* him, an agreement can be valid *in favour of* a minor. A minor can be a promisee or a beneficiary under a contract. For example, a minor can accept a gift, be a beneficiary under a trust, or be a promisee in a contract where he provides no consideration but receives a benefit (though such contracts need careful examination). A contract of marriage to which a minor is a party is also considered valid in India.

Example 1. Mr. Arjun, an adult, supplies essential textbooks and notebooks to Mr. Prem, a minor studying in Class 10, which are necessary for his education. Mr. Prem does not pay for these. Can Mr. Arjun recover the cost from Mr. Prem?

Answer:

Yes, Mr. Arjun can potentially recover the cost, but only from Mr. Prem's property, not from Mr. Prem personally. Textbooks and notebooks necessary for a minor's education are considered 'necessaries suited to his condition in life'. According to Section 68 of the Indian Contract Act, a person who supplies necessaries to a minor is entitled to be reimbursed from the property of the minor. So, if Mr. Prem has any property (like inherited money or assets), Mr. Arjun can recover the cost of the textbooks and notebooks from that property.

Example 2. Ms. Sunita, aged 17, enters into an agreement with Mr. Mohan to learn computer programming at his institute for one year. The agreement requires Ms. Sunita to pay a monthly fee and attend classes regularly, and Mr. Mohan promises to provide comprehensive training. Can this agreement be binding on Ms. Sunita?

Answer:

This agreement might be considered a beneficial contract of service or training for Ms. Sunita as it relates to her education and skill development, which could help her earn a livelihood in the future. Indian courts, sometimes relying on English precedents, may consider such contracts binding on a minor if they are found to be beneficial to the minor as a whole, considering all the terms. If the Court determines that the training contract is genuinely for Ms. Sunita's benefit, it might be held enforceable against her, making it an exception to the general rule of void minor's agreements.

Example 3. A minor drives a car negligently and causes an accident, injuring a pedestrian. Can the pedestrian sue the minor for damages?

Answer:

Yes, the pedestrian can sue the minor for damages. The minor's act of driving negligently and causing injury is a civil wrong or tort (negligence). A minor is generally liable for his torts, just like an adult. This liability arises independently of any contract. The fact that the person who caused the injury is a minor does not exempt them from liability for their wrongful acts that cause harm to others. The pedestrian can sue the minor in a tort action to recover compensation for the injuries sustained.

Persons of Unsound Mind and Disqualified Persons

Persons of Unsound Mind (Section 12)

Besides attaining the age of majority, another essential requirement for a person to be competent to contract is that they must be of sound mind at the time of entering into the agreement (Section 11). The Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides a definition of what constitutes a 'sound mind' for contractual purposes.

Meaning of Sound Mind

Section 12 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines "sound mind":

This definition establishes a two-fold test for soundness of mind at the time of contracting:

1. Capacity to understand the terms of the contract: The person must be able to comprehend the nature and terms of the agreement they are entering into.

2. Capacity to form a rational judgment about the effects of the contract: The person must be able to evaluate the consequences of the contract on their own interests and decide rationally whether it is beneficial or detrimental to them.

It is the state of mind at the time of making the contract that matters. The Section clarifies that:

A person who is usually of unsound mind, but occasionally of sound mind, may make a contract when he is of sound mind. For example, a lunatic who has lucid intervals can contract during a lucid interval.
A person who is usually of sound mind, but occasionally of unsound mind, may not make a contract when he is of unsound mind. For example, a person suffering from delirium due to fever, or intoxicated by alcohol or drugs, might be temporarily of unsound mind.

The law presumes every person to be of sound mind unless the contrary is proved. The burden of proof lies on the person who alleges that the other party was of unsound mind at the time of contracting.

Contracts by persons of unsound mind

The effect of a contract entered into by a person of unsound mind depends on whether they were permanently or temporarily of unsound mind, and whether the other party was aware of their condition.

Person permanently of unsound mind (e.g., Idiot): An agreement by a person who is permanently of unsound mind is generally void ab initio, similar to a minor's agreement, because such a person lacks the basic capacity to understand and form a rational judgment.
Person occasionally of unsound mind (e.g., Lunatic, or temporarily due to illness/intoxication):
- A contract made by such a person while they are in a state of unsoundness of mind is generally voidable at their option. The contract is valid until they choose to repudiate it upon regaining soundness of mind.
- If the other party knew about the person's unsoundness of mind and took unfair advantage of the situation, the contract might be treated as void or liable to be set aside on grounds of fraud or undue influence, in addition to unsoundness.
- As stated in Section 12, a contract made by such a person during a lucid interval (when they satisfy the test of sound mind) is perfectly valid.
Necessaries supplied: Similar to minors, the property of a person of unsound mind is liable for necessaries supplied to them or their dependents (Section 68). The person themselves is not personally liable.

Interdiction and Lunacy

These terms are related to legal processes concerning persons of unsound mind, though not directly defined in the Contract Act:

Lunacy/Insanity: Refers to a state of mental disorder. The Contract Act uses the term 'unsound mind', which is broader and includes conditions like idiocy, delirium, etc., not just what is medically termed lunacy. A person can be medically insane but still capable of contracting during lucid intervals according to Section 12.
Interdiction: In some legal systems, interdiction is a judicial declaration that a person is incapable of managing their own affairs due to mental infirmity, often leading to the appointment of a guardian. While the term 'interdiction' is not specifically used in the Indian Contract Act, a person who has been declared a 'lunatic' by a competent court and for whom a guardian has been appointed may be considered a 'disqualified person' or treated as permanently of unsound mind, affecting their contractual capacity. The fact of a judicial declaration of unsoundness or appointment of a guardian due to unsoundness serves as strong evidence of the person's lack of contractual capacity.

In summary, the law protects persons of unsound mind from being bound by contracts entered into when they are incapable of understanding and judging rationally, while also recognizing contracts made during periods of soundness.

Example 1. Mr. Anand suffers from occasional fits of mental derangement, but has periods when he is perfectly rational. During one such rational period, he enters into a contract to sell his car to Mr. Bhavesh. Later, when in a state of mental derangement, Mr. Anand attempts to repudiate the contract. Is the contract valid?

Answer:

Yes, the contract is valid. According to Section 12, a person who is usually of unsound mind but occasionally of sound mind can make a contract when they are of sound mind. Since Mr. Anand entered into the contract during a lucid interval when he was capable of understanding and forming a rational judgment, the contract is valid and binding upon him. He cannot repudiate it later just because he subsequently enters into a state of unsoundness.

Example 2. Mr. Chandan, an elderly person, is suffering from severe dementia and is incapable of understanding conversations or making decisions. Mr. Deepak, aware of this, convinces Mr. Chandan to sign a document transferring his property to Mr. Deepak for a nominal sum. Is this agreement valid?

Answer:

No, this agreement is not valid. Mr. Chandan is of unsound mind due to severe dementia, lacking the capacity to understand the nature and effect of the transaction or form a rational judgment. Therefore, he is not competent to contract under Section 11 and Section 12. An agreement with a person who is permanently or severely of unsound mind, especially when the other party is aware of this and takes advantage, is void. Additionally, this agreement would likely also be voidable or liable to be set aside on grounds of fraud, undue influence, or unconscionability.

Persons Disqualified by Law

The third category of persons incompetent to contract, as listed in Section 11, are those who are "disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject." This means certain individuals are barred or have limited capacity to enter into contracts not because of their age or mental state, but due to their legal status under specific laws.

Alien enemies

An 'alien' is a citizen of a foreign country. An 'alien enemy' is a citizen of a country with which India is at war. The contractual capacity of alien enemies is restricted based on public policy, which prohibits trading with enemies during wartime.

During War: An alien enemy cannot enter into a fresh contract with an Indian citizen or a person residing in India. Any contract made during war is generally illegal and void unless made with the permission of the government.
Before War: Existing contracts with persons who become alien enemies upon the outbreak of war are either suspended during the war (if they are beneficial to Indian citizens and not injurious to the country) or terminated (if they require intercourse with the enemy country or are detrimental to India's interests). Upon the end of the war, suspended contracts revive.
Alien Friends: Citizens of foreign countries with which India is at peace (alien friends) generally have full contractual capacity, similar to Indian citizens, subject to specific laws applicable to foreigners.

Insolvent persons

An insolvent is a person who is unable to pay their debts and has been declared insolvent by a competent court under insolvency laws (like the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code, 2016, or earlier Insolvency Acts). When a person is declared insolvent, their property vests in a court-appointed Official Receiver or Official Assignee.

An insolvent person is disqualified from entering into contracts concerning their property which has vested in the Official Receiver/Assignee.
They can enter into contracts relating to their earnings or after-acquired property, but their capacity might still be limited until they are discharged from insolvency by the court.
The disqualification ceases once the insolvent is discharged by the court.

The purpose is to ensure that the insolvent's assets are managed and distributed among their creditors under court supervision, and the insolvent does not enter into transactions that would prejudice the rights of creditors.

Convicts

A convict is a person found guilty of a crime and sentenced to imprisonment. While undergoing sentence, a convict's contractual capacity is suspended or limited.

A convict cannot enter into a contract while serving a sentence of imprisonment.
Their capacity to sue on existing contracts may also be suspended during imprisonment.
Upon the expiry of the sentence or being pardoned, the convict regains their full contractual capacity.

This disqualification is based on civil disability imposed during the period of incarceration.

Other Disqualified Persons:

Corporations/Companies: As artificial legal persons, their capacity to contract is limited by their Memorandum of Association and the Companies Act, 2013. They can only enter into contracts that are within their stated objects.
Married Women: Historically disqualified, but now have full contractual capacity in India.
Sovereigns and Ambassadors: These individuals enjoy certain immunities under international law and Indian law. They cannot ordinarily be sued in Indian courts without the permission of the Central Government (Section 86, CPC). Their ability to enter into contracts that can be enforced in Indian courts is thus restricted unless such permission is obtained.

The list of disqualified persons can vary based on specific statutes or legal principles applicable to particular categories of individuals.

Example 1. During a period when India is at war with Country X, a citizen of Country X residing in India attempts to enter into a contract to buy goods from an Indian businessperson. Is this contract valid?

Answer:

No, this contract is generally not valid. A citizen of a country with which India is at war is considered an alien enemy. Public policy dictates that trading with an enemy is prohibited. Therefore, an alien enemy is disqualified from entering into a fresh contract with an Indian citizen during wartime, unless specifically permitted by the Indian government. The agreement would likely be deemed illegal and void.

Example 2. Mr. Sanjeev is declared insolvent by the Court, and his property vests in the Official Receiver. After the declaration but before being discharged, Mr. Sanjeev enters into an agreement to sell one of his properties that is now under the Official Receiver's control. Is this agreement binding?

Answer:

No, this agreement is not binding regarding the property under the Official Receiver's control. An insolvent person is disqualified by law from contracting in respect of property that has vested in the Official Receiver upon his insolvency. The Official Receiver is now the legal custodian of that property, and Mr. Sanjeev no longer has the legal capacity to sell it. The agreement to sell the property would be void as Mr. Sanjeev was disqualified from entering into such a contract.