Ratification

                     Ratification

A person cannot on attaining majority ratify an agreement made by him during his minority. Ratification relates back to the date of the making of the contract, and, therefore a contract which was then void cannot be made valid by subsequent ratification. The basic meaning of Ratification is “an act of voting on a decision or signing a written agreement to make it official”. Legal Meaning of Ratification is “The consent to an act that has already been performed”. It would be a contradiction in terms to say that a void contract can be ratified. If it is necessary, a fresh contract should be made on attaining majority. And a new contract will also require a fresh consideration. The consideration which passed under the earlier contract cannot be implied into the contract into which the minor enters on attaining majority. In a case before the full bench of the Allahabad High Court the facts were :

 A Minor borrowed a sum of money executing a simple bond for it and after attaining majority executed a second bond in respect of the original loan plus interest. It was held by a majority of two as against one that the suit upon the second bond was not maintainable, as that bond was without consideration and didn’t come under section 25 Clause 2 of the Indian contract act. SULAIMAN CJ said :  “Section 25, sub clause 2 applies when there is a promise to compensate wholly or in a part of person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor. The word compensate has been used advisory and does not connect the same idea as a loan. The word voluntarily also indicates to my mind that something has been done without any promise of consideration. Similarly the expression ‘done something for’ does not mean ‘advance money to another person’. Doing something for a person is not paying money to him.”

Where, however, a person, after attaining majority has not only ratified but also paid the debt incurred by him during minority, he cannot afterwards recover it back. In the view of Allahabad High Court such adept is only void and not unlawful

 Where, in addition to the consideration already given during minority a further advance is made or a fresh consideration given after majority, a promise to pay the whole of the amount in the opinion of the Calcutta and Allahabad High Court becomes binding. There is no question of ratification in such cases a person can always make a fresh promise after attaining majority in terms of the promise made during minority. All that is necessary is that there should be some fresh consideration for it.

Some wind of change is reflected by the following decisions. The defendant was minor at the time when he executed a deed about his interest in this state. The suit was filed at a time when he had that and majority. He did not repudiate the agreement on attaining majority. He rather admitted it. The contract became enforceable to the extent of the miners interest in the state