Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Mohri Bibi vs. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) (LEGAL CAPACITY TO DO CONTRACT)

    Uploaded by

    Fahad Bhayo
    89 views1 page
    A minor executed a mortgage to secure a loan of Rs. 20,000 at 12% interest in 1895. At the time, the minor was underage but declared he had reached majority. The mortgagee's lawyer was aware of the minor's real age. In September 1895 after reaching majority, the minor and his mother sued to cancel the mortgage as void since minors cannot enter valid contracts. Both lower courts ruled the mortgage void. On appeal after the mortgagee's death, the case was brought by his executors to validate the mortgage.

    Original Description:

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    A minor executed a mortgage to secure a loan of Rs. 20,000 at 12% interest in 1895. At the time, the minor was underage but declared he had reached majority. The mortgagee's lawyer was aware of the minor's real age. In September 1895 after reaching majority, the minor and his mother sued to cancel the mortgage as void since minors cannot enter valid contracts. Both lower courts ruled the mortgage void. On appeal after the mortgagee's death, the case was brought by his executors to validate the mortgage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    89 views1 page

    Mohri Bibi vs. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) (LEGAL CAPACITY TO DO CONTRACT)

    Uploaded by

    Fahad Bhayo
    A minor executed a mortgage to secure a loan of Rs. 20,000 at 12% interest in 1895. At the time, the minor was underage but declared he had reached majority. The mortgagee's lawyer was aware of the minor's real age. In September 1895 after reaching majority, the minor and his mother sued to cancel the mortgage as void since minors cannot enter valid contracts. Both lower courts ruled the mortgage void. On appeal after the mortgagee's death, the case was brought by his executors to validate the mortgage.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 1

    According to section 11 of the Indian Contract Act (1872), a minor is not competent to contract.

    However,
    there are no provisions that explicitly deal with the legal status of a contract entered into by a minor. This
    gave rise to a debate whether a contract entered into by a minor would be voidable at his option or void
    ab initio. In this case, the debate regarding the legal status of a contract entered into by a minor was put
    to rest by declaring that a contract entered into by a minor would be void ab initio.

    Facts:
    On 20th July, 1895 the respondent Dharmodas Ghose executed a mortgage in favour of Brahmo Dutt to
    secure the repayment of Rs. 20,000 at 12 per cent interest with respect to some houses belonging to the
    respondent. At the time, the respondent was a minor and attained 21 years of age only in the month of
    September of the same year. In the absence of Brahmo Dutt from Calcutta, the whole transaction was
    carried out by his attorney Kedar Nath Mitter and the money was advanced by his manager, Dedraj. It was
    claimed that while the transaction was being considered, the respondent’s mother and guardian, Smt.
    Jogendranundinee Dasi, had sent a letter through her attorney, Mr. Bhupendra Nath Bose, revealing the
    minority of the respondent and intimated to Mr. Kedar Nath Mitter that any money lent to the respondent
    would be at the lender’s own peril. The deed of mortgage contained a declaration by the respondent that
    hehad attained majority and the mortgagee’s assent to lend him money was obtained upon assurance of the
    same. Mr. Kedar Nath Mitter was aware of the respondent’s status as a minor. On 10 th September 1895, the
    respondent and his mother initiated an action for the declaration of the mortgage as void and sought
    cancellation of the same. The Court of First Instance granted the relief sought by the respondent and the
    Appellate Court dismissed the appeal of the appellants. After the institution of this appeal, Mr. Brahmo
    Dutt died and this appeal was prosecuted by his executors.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuGbWglQfKU

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFUCBga-aoI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llmSWtxuHgo

    You might also like