Mohori Bibee vs

Dharmodas Ghose
(1903) 30 Cal.539
By Goura Prasad Das
(1982126)
 INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE
o Appellant(Plaintiff): Mohori Bibee

o Advocate for Appellant: Watkins

o Respondent(Defendant): Dharmodas Ghose

o Advocate for Respondent: W. W. Box

o Court: Privy Council

o Judges: Lord McNaughton, Lord Davey, Lord Lindley, Sir Ford North, Sir Andrew Scoble,
Sir Andrew Wilson, JJ.
o Decided On: March 4, 1903

o Acts: Indian Evidence Act,1877-Section-115, Indian Contract Act,1872-Section-10,11,

19,41,64,65
 BACKGROUND OF THE CASE
 Brahmo Dutt, the defendant in the case, though his agent, Kedar Nath, lent a sum of
INR 20,000 to a minor at 12% interest. The loan was secured by way of a mortgage,
immovable property here, executed by the minor in the favour of Brahmo Dutt.

 Later the mother of the minor commenced the action to get the mortgage declared as
void under Section 2, 10 and 11 of Indian Contract Act 1872 (9 of 1872), and
repossession of property thereunder conveyed to the defendant.

 It was also found that on the day of the mortgage execution, Kedar Nath got the
infant to sign a long declaration that he had achieved the majority.
 FACTS OF THE CASE
 Dharmodas Ghose, was the respondent in this case. He was a minor (i.e. has not completed the 18
years of age) and he was the sole owner of his immovable property. The mother of Dharmodas Ghose
was authorized as his legal custodian by Calcutta High Court.

  When he went for the mortgage of his own immovable property which was done in the favor of
appellant i.e. Brahmo Dutta, he was a minor and he secured this mortgage deed for Rs. 20,000 at 12%
interest rate per year.

 The negotiator or representative of the defendant, who actually acted instead of on behalf of money
lender has given money or sum to the plaintiff, who was a minor and he fully had knowledge about
the incompetency of the plaintiff to perform or enter into contract and also that he was incompetent
legally to mortgage his property which belonged to him.

 The plaintiff argued or confronted that in such case no relaxation or any sought of aid should be
provided to them because according to him, defendant had deceitfully or dishonestly misinterpreted
the fact about his age and because if mortgage is cancelled at the request by defendant i.e. Dharmodas
Ghose.
 ESSENTIALS OF A VALID CONTRACT
Capacity to Contract
INDIAN CONTRACT ACT,1872

 Section 10: What agreements are contracts.—All agreements are contracts if they are made by
the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object,
and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.

 Section 11: Who are competent to contract.—Every person is competent to contract who is of the
age of majority according to the 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.
 ISSUES RAISED:-

Whether the deed was void under section 2, 10, 11, of Indian Contract
Act, 1872 or not?

Whether the defendant was liable to return the amount of loan which he
had received by him under such deed or mortgage or not?

Whether the mortgage commenced by the defendant was voidable or

not?
 THE JUDGEMENT
 The Privy Council was held that the minors contract is void and not merely voidable
on the basis of section 10, 11, 183, 184 and old sections 246 and 247(now section 30
of the Partnership Act). The combine effect of these sections and particularly section
10 and 11 renders the minor contact completely void.

 According to the Privy Council section 11 should be literally construed and that only
a person who is of the age of the majority is competent to contract. A minor’s
contract is, therefore, ab initio and wholly void.

 He can’t be compelled to repay the amount advanced to him as he is not bound by the
promise made by him under the contract.
 EFFECT OF MINOR’S AGREEMENT
 Equitable Doctrine of Restitution: If a minor obtains some property by fraudulently
misrepresenting his age, he can be ordered to restore the property or goods thus obtained. This is
called the equitable doctrine.

 Principal of Estoppel not applicable: The term ‘estoppel’ may be defined as prevention of a
claim or assertion by law.

when a minor fraudulently enters into a contract, representing that he is a major, but in reality he is not,
then later on he can plead his minority as a defense and cannot be stopped (i.e. prevented) from doing so.
 COMMENT
 In the case of Mohori Bibee V/S Dharmodas Ghose, the Privy Council strictly defined that any sought of contract
or agreement with a minor or with any infant shall be null and void.

 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 perception is correct because minor or infant comes in the category of such people who cannot give there free
consent along with the reason that they are not in a situation where they can think in a manner in which a prudent or
an ordinary person could do it.

 The court also through its verdict has propounded that, a contract with an infant shall be declared null and void it
means that it is neither valid nor voidable.

 According to me, minors contract shall be avoided and stopped because it sometimes lead to the harmful social,
economic and legal effects on the lives and conditions of the minors. Any such person who commits such offence
shall be strictly punished by court of law, either through imprisonment or with a fine or with both according to the
ambit of the offence committed by the major person.