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
4th
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contract with a minor is void and such a contract should be rescinded and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.
0 Comments