A, a minor, borrowed ₹2 lakh from a moneylender for a business venture and executed a promissory note. On default, the moneylender sues A and A's father for recovery. Which of the following is correct under the Indian Contract Act 1872?

Under Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, a minor is not competent to contract, and Section 10 requires competence for a valid agreement. The settled position, laid down in Mohori Bibee v. Ghose Mohammad, is that an agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio and cannot be enforced against him at all. A promissory note executed by a minor is therefore void, and the moneylender cannot sue him for recovery. The father is liable only if he personally signed as a guarantor or co-obligant, which the facts do not state. The sole concession in favour of a minor is Section 68, which permits recovery from the minor's property for necessaries supplied; a business loan is not a necessary, and being void, the agreement cannot be ratified after majority.