Mohari Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903)

 Court: Kolkata High Court

 Case No: Ilr (1903) 30 Cal 539 (Pc)
 Judge: Lord McNaughton, Lord Davey, Lord Lindley, Sir Ford North, Sir Andrew
Scoble, Sir Andrew Wilson, JJ
 Appellant: Mohari Bibee
 Defendant: Dharmodas Ghose
 Advocate of Appellant: Watkins
 Advocate of Defendant: W.W Box
 Reported in: (1903)30 IndianAppeals114
 Decided on: March-04-1903
 Acts: Indian Evidence Act, 1877 -Section115; Indian Contract Act- Sections
41,19,64,65
 Fact of the case:
 The respondent in this case was Dharmodas Ghose. He was a minor (i.e., he
had not even reached the age of eighteen) and the only owner of his
immovable property. The Calcutta High Court appointed Dharmodas Ghose's
mother as his legal guardian
 He was a minor when he took out a mortgage on his own immovable property
in favour of appellant, Brahmo Dutta, and he secured this mortgage deed for
Rs. 20,000 at a rate of 12 percent per year.
 Bhramo Dutta who was a money lender at that time and he secured a loan or
amount of Rs. 20,000, and the management of his business was in the control
of Kedar Nath, and Kedar Nath acted as the attorney of Brahmo Dutta
 Brahmo Dutta received a notification from Dharmodas Ghose's mother
informing him of Dharmodas Ghose's minority on the date the mortgage deed
was started.
 However, the loan amount that was really granted was less than Rs. 20,000.
 The defendant's negotiator or representative, who actually acted on behalf of
the money lender, gave money or a sum of money to the appellant, who was a
minor, and he had full knowledge of the appellant's incompetency to perform
or enter into contract, as well as that he was legally incompetent to mortgage
his own property.
  After that, on September 10, 1895, Dharmodas Ghose and his mother filed a
legal suit or action against Brahmo Dutta, claiming that Dharmodas' mortgage
was started when he was a minor or infant, and that as a result, such mortgage
was void, disproportionate, or improper, and that as a result, such contract
should be withdrawn or invalidated.
 Brahmo Dutta died while this petition or claim was being processed, and his
executors then prosecuted or indicted the appeal or petition.
 The appellant addressed that in such a case, no relief or assistance should be
granted to them since, according to him, defendant had fraudulently or
deceitfully misrepresented the fact about his age, and because if the mortgage
is terminated at Dharmodas Ghose's request.
 Decision by the court
 The council held the contract by the minor as void
 The minor has no capacity to contract hence the mortgage was no valid
 He cannot be compelled to repay the amount advanced to him
 As he is not bound by the promise made by him under the contract
 The minor that is Dharmodas Ghose cannot be forced to give back the amount
of money that was advanced to him, because he was not bound by the promise
that was executed in a contract
 Relevance of the decision taken by the court:

According to me any sought of contract in which a minor is party to contract or whether

he/she is involved in it shall be void. This view is true since minors and infants fall into the
group of persons who are unable to freely offer their permission due to their inability to think
in the way that a wise or regular person would. An agreement is a deal in which all parties
provide their free and equal permission, although in the case of a minor, the consent might be
dominated by major ones, resulting in a breach of one of the conditions for forming a
contract, namely free consent (a consent is said to be free when it is not caused by Coercion,
Undue Influence, Fraud, Miss representation and Mistake.