Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghosh

 

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghosh

JUDGES

1.     Lord McNaughton

2.     Lord Davey

3.     Lord Lindley

4.     Sir Andrew Scoble

5.     Sir Andrew Wilson

COURT

Calcutta High Court

DATE OF JUDGEMENT

4^th March 1903

NAME OF THE PARTIES

Appellant – Mohori Bibee

Respondent – Dharmodas Ghose

ACT

Indian Evidence Act, 1877 and Indian Contract Act,1872

ABSTRACT

This project is a case analysis of the very popular landmark Judgement that covers the ambit of minor’s agreement. This case basically deals with a minor contract or a contract with a minor. In India, an agreement or a contact with a minor is a person who is below the age of 18 years or any person who has not completed 18 years of age are legally called to be Void-ab-Initio which means from the beginning it is void. According to law, such people are not competent to contract or agreement. According to the Court, any person who is below 18 yrs of age are not intend to create a Contract .

This case basically provides us the knowledge according to the Indian Majority Act of 1875 that minors are legally incompetent to give their assent so they need to deserve or  be  provide with the protection in their dealings with other major person. Whereas from the Privy Council, declared the law that any contract made by minor is “absolutely Void” from beginning and this has been strictly followed on.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1.      Dharmodas (plaintiff)  has mortgaged  his property  in favour  of Brahmo Dutt (defendant) when  he was a minor. 

2.     Brahmo Dutt was a  money  lender  in Calcutta . He took  a loan of Rs 20,0000 from him, in order to  take the loan, he  mortgage his house as security.

3.     The transaction  was done when Brahmo Dutt was  not there and it was done by  his attorney name Kedar  Nath, who  had the knowledge of the plantiff is a minor.

4.     The actual amount of loan was less than Rs 20,000 .

5.     On September  10, 1895  Dharmodas  along with his mother filed a suit against Brahmo Dutt stating  that the mortgage that was executed by  Dharmodas  was commented when he was a  minor.

6.     Further, contended that the contract with a minor is void and such a contract should be rescinded and revoked.

7.     When this petition  was in process, Brahmo Dutt had died and the further proceedings were done by his executor’s.

ISSUES

1.     What  is  the  nature  of a minor’s agreement?

2.     Whether the deed was void under section 2, 10(5), 11(6) of  the  Indian Contract Act, 1872 or not?

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

4.     Whether the mortgage commenced  by the defendant was voidable or not?

 

 

JUDGEMENT

The judgement given was that the minors have no  eligibility to enter into a contract under section 11 of the Contract Act. This section says that “Every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he/she is subjected to. Hence any contract with a minor is void ab initio . it is said that all the requirements under section 11have to be fulfilled  in order to constitute a valid contract.

Further it was held that the contract with the minor is void. 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.

CONCLUSION
In Mohori Bibee v/s Dharmodas Ghosh , 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 eye of law. In cases minors parent 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 obligations.