| Citation | Mohori bibee V Dhurmodas Ghose (1903) 30 I A 114 Case Analysis |
| Keywords | |
| Facts | 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. 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. Dharmodas Ghose’s mother sent a notification to Brahmo Dutta informing him about the minority of Dharmodas Ghose on the date on which such mortgage deed was commenced.but the proportion or sum of loan that was actually provided was less than Rs. 20,000. 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. After that, on 10thSept. 1895 Dharmodas Ghose along with his mother brought an legal suit or action against Brahmo Dutta by saying that the mortgage that was executed by Dharmodas was commenced when he was a minor or infant and so such mortgage was void and disproportionate or improper and as a result of which such contract should be revoked or rescinded. When this petition or claim was in process, Brahmo Dutta had died and then further the appeal or petition was litigated or indicted by his executor’s. |
| Issues | Whether the deed was void under section 2, 10[5], 11[6], 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? Section 10 – what agreement are contractFree consent Parties Competent to contract Lawful consideration Lawful object Section 11 of ICA 1872 Who are competent to contractAge of majority according to the law to which he is subject Who is of sound mind Not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject. According to he verdict of Trial Court, such mortgage deed or contract that was commenced between the plaintiff and the defendant was void as it was accomplished by the person who was an infant at the time of execution of mortgage. When Brahmo Dutta was not satisfied with the verdict of Trial Court he filled an appeal in the Calcutta High Court |
| Contentions | |
| Law Points | The principles of law that were laid down in this case are:− Any contract with a minor or an infant is neither valid nor voidable but is void ab− initio(void from beginning) Section 64 of Indian Contract Act,1872 is only applicable in the case, where the parties entering in contact are competent to make such contract and is not applied to cases where there is no contract made at all. The legal acts done by an representative or any knowledge of an agent means that such acts done or having knowledge of anything is of his principal. |
| Judgment | A person who by reason of infancy is as laid down by section 11 of ICA, incompetent to contract, cannot make a contract within the meaning of the act. The transaction entered can not be recognised by law Contract Void, as it was accomplished by the person who was an infant at the time of execution of mortgage. According to the decision of Calcutta High Court, they agreed with the verdict that was given by Trial Court and it dismissed the appeal of Brahmo Dutta. Then he later went to Privy Council for the appeal and later the Privy Council also dismissed the appeal of Brahmo Dutta and held that there cannot be any sought of contract between a minor and a major person. The final decision that was passed by the Council were :− 1.Any sought of contract with a minor or infant is void/ void ab−initio (void from beginning). 2.Since minor was incompetent to make such mortgage hence the contact such made or commenced shall also be void and id not valid in the eyes of law. 3.The minor i.e. Dahrmodas Gosh 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. |
| Ratio Decidendi & Case Authority |
Full Case Details
To do
