In 1903 the Privy Council considered the position in Mohori Bibi v. DharmadasGhose (1903, 30 Cal. 539, P.C)
Mohori Bibi v. Dharmadas Ghose.
The plaintiff, a minor for whom a guardian had been appointed under the Guardianand Wards Act, had executed at the age of twenty, a mortgage for a sum of Rs20,000 out of which the moneylender had paid him only about Rs.8000. Thedefendant had sufficient notice of the plaintiff’s minority. A suit was instituted bythe minor for setting aside the mortgage. It was contended by the defendant that acontract was only voidable and the sum borrowed must be refunded under section65 of the Contract Act. According to section 65:
‘When a contract becomes void any person whohas received any advantage under suchcontract, is bound to restore it, or makecompensation for it. ’
The Privy Council rejected the argument and held that the minor’s contract was abinitio void and no question of refunding any money could arise in suchcircumstances.By the decision of the Privy Council in Mohori Bibi’s case it is finally settled thata minor’s agreement in India is absolutely void.
Raj Rani vs. Prem Adib.
Mohori Bibi v. Dharmadas Ghose
30 IA 114: 30 Cal (1903)).
Raj Rani vs. Prem Adib
(A.I.R 1949 Bom. 215)