NAME- NEHA MOHANTY

INSTITUTIONAL AFFILIATION- KIIT SCHOOL OF LAW

COURSE- BBALLB

CASE TITLE- MOHORI BIBEE VERSES DHARMODAS GHOSE

NAME OF THE CASE -MOHORI BIBEE VERSES DHARMODAS GHOSH

CITATION- (1903) ILR 30 Cal 539 (PC)

DATE OF JUDGEMENT- 4TH MARCH,1903

NAME OF THE JUDGES-Lord McNaughton, Lord Davey,Lord Dindley, Sir Ford North,
Sir Andrew Scooble, Sir Andrew Wilson

PETITIONER- BRAHMO DUTT

RESPONDENT- DHARMODAS GHOSE

FACTS OF THE CASE:- In this case Dharmodas ghosh was the respondent . He was a minor
as he did not complete the 18 years. And was the sole proprietor of his real estate. His mother
was permitted as his lawful guardian by the high court of Calcutta. When he was a minor he
went for the mortgage of his own property which was done in the favour of the petitioner
Brahmo dutt. And Dharmodas Ghosh fixed his mortgage deed of rs 20000 at 12 percent interest
per annum. After the deed was fixed Dharmodas ghosh mother sent a message to Brahmo dutt
informing him about the minority of Dharmodas Ghosh on the day the deed on mortgage was
fixed.

The representative of the defendant and who acted on behalf of the money lender has given
money to the plaintiff Dharmodas Ghosh who was the minor and he was also aware of the
incapability of the plaintiff to perform or enter into the contract and also he was incompetent to
mortgage his property which belonged to him.

On 10th September 1895 the respondent Dharmodas Ghose with his mother filed a legal suit
against the petitioner Brahmo Dutt by stating the fact that the mortgage deed was carried out
when he was a minor so this mortgage deed is void and improper and as a result this deed needs
to be revoked .

When the claim was in process against Brahmo Dutt he died at that time and after that the
petition was further litigated by his representative

When this petition or claim was in process, Brahmo Dutt had died and then further the appeal or
petition was litigated by his executor’s. The plaintiff argued or confronted to declare the contract
between them as void ab-initio, since from the beginning of the contract, Dharmodas was a
minor. On the contrary, the Respondent argued that the contract was not void but voidable due to
fraudulent presentation of age and that the plaintiff must not be allowed any kind of relief
without repayment of the advanced loan. He also stated that according to section 115 of the
Indian evidence act , 1872 the principle of estoppel must be applied in this case because the
plaintiff Brahmo Dutt had hidden many facts from the beginning of the contract.

ISSUES RAISED

 Whether the mortgage deed which was signed was invalid under section 2, 10 and 11 of the
Indian contract act, 1872 or not?

 Whether the respondent was accountable to return the loan amount which he had received by
the petitioner under the mortgage deed?

 Whether the mortgage deed initiated by the respondent was voidable or not ?

 What was the essence or nature of the minor’s agreement?

 Whether section 115 of the Indian evidence act ,1872 would be applicable in the case of
minors?

CONTENTION:-
This present case of Mohori bibee verses Dharmodas Gosh,is all about the minor’s agreement.
Even after the execution of the Indian contract act,1872 the nature of the contract with a minor is
always controversial.As we know that any contract entered upon with a minor or infant will be
considered as void contract. It is very clear from this case that Dharmodas Ghose was the minor
and was incapable to make such a mortgage deed so the contract which he had entered with
Brahmo Dutt is void and is not justifiable or valid in the eyes of law.

The minor Dharmodas Ghose cannot be forced to return the amount that was advance to him
because he was not bound by promise that was executed in the contract.
Any contract with a minor is void ab initio means it is is invalid from the outset. The legal or
lawful act which is done by the representatives or the agent it means that such acts are done with
the knowledge of their principal.

The mortgage deed that was commenced between the plaintiff and the defendant is void as it was
executed by a person who was a minor at the time of execution of the mortgage.

The judgements had made it clear that any sort of contract made with a minor ,whether expressed
or implied would be considered null and void since, a minor is not capable of contracting.

. According to us, the judgment prevents the possibility of any harmful social, economic and
legal effects on the lives and conditions of the minors arising out of any contractual liability.y.
At the end, the judgment also indirectly explains the important At the end, the judgment also
indirectly explains the importance of a guardian’s consent in a minor’s life as far as contractual
liabilities are concerned.It was explained that in case of a contract with a minor where the loan
had already been advanced to the minor, the guardian of the minor would not be under any legal
or moral obligation to repay the loan unless the prior consent of such guardian had been obtained
before execution of the said agreement with the minor, hereby rendering the prior consent of the
guardian as mandatory.

Section 11 of the Indian contract act states that “every person is competent to contract who is of
the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject , and should be of sound mind and
not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject to. So according to the
section it makes it important that both the contracting parties they should be competent to
contract.But here in this case it does not satisfy this condition.
RATIONALE:-
The trial court gave the verdict after hearing both the the arguments that the mortgage deed or
the agreement that was commenced between the plaintiff and the defendant is void . But the
plaintiff Brahmo Dutt was not satisfied in the verdict of the trial court so he decided to appeal in
the Calcutta High court. The Calcutta high court again gave his same judgement as that of the
trial court. They agreed to the verdict of the Trial court.

Atlast the plaintiff Dharmodas Gosh’s wife Mohori Bibee approached the privy council for the
appeal because Brahmo Dutt died during this period.

The privy council maintained the judgement of the appellant court and ruled that any contract
signed with a minor or entered upon with a minor shall be void ab initio and would not be
considered voidable for any reason.

The privy council stated that according to the principle of estoppel as mentioned under section
115 of the Indian evidence act, 1872 would not be applicable to minors if the minor had
misrepresented himself as a major during the execution of the contract. So here in this present
case this principle of estoppel cannot be applicable as the plaintiff Brahmo Dutt was well aware
of the age of Dharmodas Gosh while entering into the contract and also was not falsely deceived
by the minor . So estoppel cannot be applied when both the parties are aware and know the true
facts .

The privy council further stated that false statements made to someone who very well is aware
that it is false does not constitute fraud and would not render the contract as voidable. This
principle has been explained and is mentioned in section 19 of the Indian Contract act, 1872.

The petitioner argued stating section 64 of the Indian contract act,1872 while claiming
repayment of the advanced loan to the respondent but the privy council stated that this section is
only applicable for the persons who are capable to enter into the contract and therefore cannot be
applicable to a minor.

In the context of these arguments,to establish whether the contract entered into by the minor was
void ab-initio or voidable, the Lordships analyzed Section 7 of the Transfer of Property Act,
188211 and Section 2(e)12 , Section 2(g)13 , Section 2(h)14 , Section 1015 and Section 1116 of
the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and concluded that the Acts make it mandatory that the contracting
parties are „competent parties‟ and that definitely do not involve minor.

The privy council later dismissed the appeal of Brahmo Dutta and said that there cannot be any
contract between a minor person and a major . And therefore ruled that a contract entered into by
a minor is void ab initio.

PRINCIPLES LEAD IN THIS CASE:-

It basically states that no contract can be entered with a minor and if any person has entered into
a contract with a minor then that will be declared as void ab initio and hence no liability will be
raised on the shoulder of the minor.

If such contract takes place or occurs then the court shall not entertain such cases and it will be
dismissed.

CONCLUSION/INFERENCE:-

In Mohori Bibee v/s Dharmodas Ghose, at the end it can be concluded that any agreement or
deed in which minor is party to it or is included in such agreement shall be declared null and
void because such agreement is not agreement in the eyes of law. In cases minors parents or
custodians shall not be liable for the dealing done by the minor without their consent, and hence
they will be not liable to return the amount back taken by the minor out of the moral obligation.
Section 10 of the Contract Act requires that the parties must be competent to contract.
Competence to contract is defined in Section 11:
Section 11: Who are competent to contract- Every person is competent to contract who is of the
age of majority according to 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.

Thus, the section declares the following persons to be incompetent to contract-

 Minors,
 Persons of sound mind, and
 Persons disqualified by law to which they are subject.

 The minor has no capacity to contract and the mortgage was invalid. The minor cannot be
compelled to repay the amount advanced to him because he is not bound by any sort of promise
made by him under the contract. Also, the law of estoppels is not used for the minor.