Question

A, an 18-year-old adult of sound mind, executes a written instrument in favour of B stating, "I promise to pay B 75,000 on 1st April next year." A is fully competent, has signed the note, and the instrument contains all essential elements of a promissory note. B sues A for recovery after 1st April when A defaults. Examine the correct legal position.

• A. The promissory note is valid; A is liable to pay B.
• B. The promissory note is voidable at A's option since A is only 18 years of age.
• C. The promissory note is valid only if a third party signs as witness.
• D. The promissory note is void because it does not mention the consideration.

Hint:

For Negotiable Instruments questions, first check capacity, signature, unconditional promise, certainty of amount, and identifiable payee. If all are present, the promissory note is generally valid and enforceable.

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

A clean way to work through this is to build a short checklist of what Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 actually requires for a valid promissory note, and then tick each requirement off against the facts given.

1. Capacity to contract: The facts state A is eighteen years old and of sound mind. Eighteen is the age of majority in India, so A already has full capacity to enter into binding contracts, including making a promissory note.
2. Written and signed instrument: The facts confirm A has executed a written instrument and signed it, satisfying the formal requirement that the promise be reduced to writing and authenticated by the maker's signature.
3. Unconditional promise of a certain sum to a certain person: The instrument promises to pay a fixed sum of 75,000 to B on a specific date, an unconditional undertaking for a definite amount to an identified payee, exactly what the definition of a promissory note requires.
4. No extra formality needed: Since witness attestation and express recital of consideration are not part of what the law demands for a promissory note, their absence from the facts does not create any defect.

Every requirement the law actually imposes is satisfied on these facts, so nothing stands in the way of enforcement against A.

So the correct answer is The promissory note is valid; A is liable to pay B.

Answer 2

Students sometimes assume that anyone very recently turned adult still needs some kind of special protection before their signed documents can bind them. Testing that assumption against Indian law is a useful way to answer this question.

1. Checking the actual age of majority: Under the Indian Majority Act, 1875, a person ordinarily attains majority at the age of eighteen. There is no separate, higher threshold of contractual capacity for promissory notes specifically, so an eighteen-year-old is already a full adult in the eyes of contract law the moment they turn eighteen.
2. Why the voidability option fails: The option suggesting the note is voidable because A is only eighteen relies on treating eighteen as somehow still a minor's age, which is incorrect. Since A has already crossed the threshold of majority, there is no minority-based ground to make the note voidable at A's option.
3. Why the witness option fails: A promissory note is a species of negotiable instrument whose validity is governed by its own definitional requirements, and third-party attestation has never been one of them, so demanding a witness's signature adds a condition outside the law.
4. Why the consideration option fails: Negotiable instruments law presumes consideration exists behind every such instrument, so a promissory note is not rendered void simply because the document itself does not spell out what was given in exchange for the promise.

Once the misconception about A's age is corrected, and the other proposed defects are shown to import requirements the law does not impose, the note stands as a fully valid and enforceable instrument.

Therefore, the correct answer is The promissory note is valid; A is liable to pay B.