A JURISPRUDENTIAL STUDY OF

MOHORI BIBEE v. DHARMODAS GHOSE

BL206 Jurisprudence

Submitted By
Namahsrut Phukan
SM0123033
1st Year, 2nd Semester

Submitted To
Mr. Saheb Chowdhury
Assistant Professor of Law

National Law University and Judicial Academy, Assam

 CONTENTS

Abstract ........................................................................................................................................... 1
I. Chapter 1: Introduction ............................................................................................................. 2
Aims and Objectives ...................................................................................................................... 3
Scope ............................................................................................................................................. 3
Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 4
Review of Literature ...................................................................................................................... 4
Research Questions ....................................................................................................................... 5
Research Methodology .................................................................................................................. 5
II. Chapter 2: Case Summary........................................................................................................ 6
Facts of the Case ........................................................................................................................... 6
Issues of the Case .......................................................................................................................... 7
Arguments Presented .................................................................................................................... 7
Judgement of the Case .................................................................................................................. 8
III. Chapter 3: Analysis of Jurisprudential School of Thought ............................................... 12
VI. Chapter 4: Conclusion ........................................................................................................... 15
Positivist Jurisprudence and Legal Formalism .......................................................................... 15
Protection of Vulnerable Parties ................................................................................................ 15
Balancing Legal Formalism with Ethical Considerations .......................................................... 16
Implications for Future Jurisprudence ....................................................................................... 16
Recommendations for Legal Reform ........................................................................................... 17
Bibliography .................................................................................................................................. 18
Cases Referred ............................................................................................................................ 18
Statutes Referred ......................................................................................................................... 18
Sources Referred ......................................................................................................................... 18
 Abstract

The significance of this paper is to analyse the landmark case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas
Ghose, focusing on the contractual capacity of minors and the protection of vulnerable parties
within Indian contract law. The balance between legal formalism and the ethical considerations of
safeguarding minors in contractual agreements is highlighted.

From a jurisprudential perspective, including positivist theory, this project explores the
foundational principles that underpin the judgement of the Privy Council. It understands legal
formalism to be rooted in philosophies as forwarded by Jeremy Bentham and John Austin, with an
understanding that law is a command of the sovereign and should be applied strictly according to
statutes.

Bentham’s distinction between legal obligations and utilitarian principles together with Austin’s
classification of law as commands presents rich insights into what constitutes valid contracts and
legal capacity. In addition, Bentham’s concept of utility as the greatest good for the greatest
number and Austin’s emphasis on legal duty adds value to the discussion about contract law,
which brings out both ethical and legal aspects of agreements. Legal precedent combined with
philosophical discourse provides a comprehensive understanding of the case’s impact.

Keywords: Positivist Jurisprudence, Legal Formalism, Contractual Capacity, Minors, Ethical

Considerations, Indian Contract Act, Legal Precedent.

1
I. Chapter 1: Introduction

In 1903, the Privy Council of India deliberated on a pivotal legal dispute between Mohori Bibee
and Dharmodas Ghose, a case now renowned as Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose1. The issue
revolved around Ghose, who, being a minor, entered into a mortgage arrangement with Bibee,
despite possessing the legal competence to do so. After reaching the age of majority, Ghose
attempted to nullify the debt, claiming that the agreement, which was made when he was a
juvenile, had no legal validity.

This landmark case not only explored the complexities of contract law but also tackled wider legal
issues concerning the safeguarding of individuals who are vulnerable to exploitation due to their
low ability to understand contractual responsibilities. The opinion of the Privy Council not only
defined essential elements of contract law but also emphasised the importance of protecting
vulnerable individuals from unfair deals.

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose had a significant impact on the development of contract law in
India, influencing its course over time. The ruling established fundamental principles governing
contracts in India, confirming that agreements entered into by individuals lacking legal capacity are
intrinsically capable of being voided and subject to cancellation.

Furthermore, the consequences of this influential case went beyond its immediate legal setting,
prompting legislative changes designed to strengthen safeguards for juveniles and other vulnerable
individuals engaged in contractual agreements. The Indian Contract Act of 18722 was modified to
strengthen protections against exploitation and undue influence in contractual transactions
involving parties who do not possess complete legal capacity.

From a broader jurisprudential perspective, Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose offers a prism
through which to examine the interplay of legal theories, societal notions of justice, and the
overarching principles of public policy. Scholars and legal practitioners have scrutinized the Privy
Council's verdict, analysing its impact on contract law principles, equity, and the wider field of

1
Mohori Bibee & Anr. v. Dharmodas Ghose, [1903] UKPC 12
2
Indian Contract Act, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India)

2
legal philosophy.

This research aims to do a thorough examination of the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose,
with the goal of examining the various aspects of this significant case by closely examining legal
principles, previous court decisions, and laws passed by the legislature. This endeavour aims to
clarify the lasting impact of the case on Indian law and its ongoing relevance in legal discussions.

Aims and Objectives

The objective of this project is to conduct a comprehensive analysis of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas
Ghose, with a specific focus on identifying the jurisprudential schools of thought that underpin the
judgment rendered by the Privy Council. This study looks at the background, facts, and arguments
of both sides in the case to try to understand the complicated legal issues that are at play and the
bigger legal consequences that come with them.

The primary aim of this project is to unravel the doctrinal foundations upon which the decision in
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose rests. This study tries to explain the legal rules that guide
contracts and the moral issues that judges think about when they make decisions by looking into
the details of contract law, undue influence, and protecting people who don't have a lot of power.

Scope

The scope of this project is focused on an in-depth analysis of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose
within the confines of Indian contract law jurisprudence, specifically emphasizing contractual
capacity, undue influence, and the safeguarding of vulnerable parties as delineated by the Privy
Council's ruling. It aims to explore the case's broader implications within legal theory while
refraining from engaging in tangential socio-political discussions. By adopting a jurisprudential
perspective, the project seeks to provide a nuanced understanding of the doctrinal underpinnings
shaping the case, acknowledging the inherent subjectivity in identifying influential jurisprudential
schools of thought. Thus, this study aims to offer a comprehensive analysis of Mohori Bibee v.
Dharmodas Ghose while remaining cognizant of the interpretative nature of jurisprudential
analysis.

3
Limitations

One of the main challenges posed before this project is to navigate the subjective nature of
identifying and interpreting specific jurisprudential schools. The attempt on identifying any
particular school of thought that influenced this judgment could end up yielding different results
from different researchers. Moreover, it is conceivable that a single judgment, such as Mohori
Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, may have been shaped by a confluence of diverse jurisprudential
perspectives, rendering it difficult to ascertain which school exerted the most significant impact on
the outcome.

Review of Literature

 Suri Ratnapala, Jurisprudence, 3rd Edition, Cambridge University Press (2017):

Suri Ratnapala’s work in jurisprudence offers a comprehensive overview of legal theory and
philosophy, including the positivist tradition. Ratnapala’s text is known for its accessible style
and critical discussion of major jurisprudential traditions. His analysis provides insights into
the nature of law, its relation to society and morality, and the concept of rights. The book is
structured to guide readers through the complexities of legal theory, making it a valuable
resource for understanding the broader philosophical underpinnings of cases like Mohori Bibee
v. Dharmodas Ghose.

 Aayushi Selot, & Pranjal Shukla, Beyond the Fine Print: A Critical Examination of
Unconscionable Contracts, 11(5) JETIR, (2024):

This paper critiques contracts that are unconscionable and exploitative, particularly against
vulnerable parties. The positivist school would view the law’s role as providing remedies for
such contracts, as they are clearly defined within the legal system. The analysis calls for a
more robust legal response to protect individuals from unconscionable contracts, which may
involve revising existing laws to prevent exploitation and ensure fairness.

4
Research Questions

 What were the key legal issues addressed in the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose,
particularly concerning the contractual capacity of minors?
 How did the Privy Council's judgement in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose reflect the
principles of positivist jurisprudence, and to what extent did it prioritize legal formalism over
ethical considerations?
 What impact did the judgement of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose have on the
development of contract law in India, particularly regarding agreements involving minors, and
what legislative changes were prompted by the ruling?
 To what extent did the court consider the ethical and societal implications of the case,
particularly concerning the vulnerability of minors in contractual relationships, and what
criticisms can be raised against a strictly positivist approach in this context?
 How can the principles established in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose inform current and
future legal frameworks for protecting vulnerable parties, especially minors, in contractual
agreements, and what measures could be taken to ensure a more balanced approach that
considers both legal formalism and ethical considerations?

Research Methodology

The research methodology adopted for this project is predominantly legal and jurisprudential,
aiming to uncover the doctrinal foundations of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose and identify the
influential schools of thought shaping the Privy Council's decision. This approach entails a
thorough analysis of existing legal literature, scholarly articles, and relevant jurisprudential texts
sourced from books, journals, and online resources. By synthesising information from these
secondary sources, the project seeks to develop a nuanced understanding of the legal principles and
theoretical frameworks underpinning the case. Additionally, the methodology involves a
comprehensive examination of the legal reasoning and precedents cited in the judgment to
elucidate the court's rationale and the broader jurisprudential implications. All the information
taken from these secondary sources have been appropriately cited. The 20th Edition of Harvard
Bluebook style of citation has been used throughout the project to maintain uniformity.

5
II. Chapter 2: Case Summary

Mohori Bibee & Anr. v. Dharmodas Ghose, [1903] UKPC 12

Facts of the Case

Dharmodas Ghose, the respondent in this case, was a minor, and the sole owner of his immovable
property located in Calcutta. His mother, Smt. Jogendranandini Dasi, acted as his legal custodian as
authorized by the Calcutta High Court. On 20th July 1895, despite being a minor, Dharmodas
executed a mortgage deed in favor of the plaintiff, Brahmo Dutt, securing Rs. 20,000 at an interest
rate of 12% per year against his property.3

The mortgage transaction was facilitated by Brahmo Dutt's attorney, Kedar Nath Mitter, and the
funds were provided by Dedraj, the manager of Brahmo Dutt's business. Prior to the transaction,
Smt. Jogendranandini Dasi notified Kedar Nath Mitter through her attorney, Mr. Bhupendra Nath
Bose, about Dharmodas's minority status and stated that any contract entered with him will be the
responsibility of the person himself or herself.4

However, the actual amount disbursed was less than Rs. 20,000. Despite being aware of
Dharmodas's minority, Kedar Nath Mitter proceeded with the mortgage and obtained a declaration
from Dharmodas affirming his majority status, allegedly under assurance.

Subsequently, on 10th September 1895, Dharmodas Ghose and his mother initiated legal
proceedings against Brahmo Dutt, seeking to declare the mortgage void due to Dharmodas's
minority at the time of execution.

Brahmo Dutt passed away during the proceedings, and the litigation was continued by his
executors. The plaintiff argued that Dharmodas had deceitfully misrepresented his age, thus
seeking no relief, especially considering that if the mortgage were to be cancelled at Dharmodas's
request, no aid should be granted to him.5

3
R.K. Bangia, Contract, 9th Edition, Allahabad Law Agency (2023)
4
Avtar Singh, Contract & Specific Relief, 13th Edition, Eastern Book Company (2022)
5
Legal Service India - Case Analysis-Mohori Bibee v/s Dharmodas Ghose,

6
Issues of the Case

 The law of estoppel should be made applicable, the minor had received advantages and
benefits by fraudulently misrepresenting his age. And no relief should be given to him.
 If mortgage has been nullified or cancelled so minor should pay Rs 10,500 as advanced by the
moneylender. This was under Specific Relief Act 1877 (Section 39 and 41).
 He had also raised refunds on the grounds of section 64 and section 65 of the Indian contract
act 1872.
 Whether deed was void under section 2, 10(5), 11(6) of contract act or not?
 Whether the mortgage that defendant had commenced was voidable or not?

Arguments Presented

 Agruments of the Appellant:

The respondent claims in Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose to have been a minor when he
executed the mortgage, but the appellant argues that the respondent was actually of legal age at
that time. The appellant and their representative were unaware of the fact that the respondent
was a minor. The claim is made that the respondent deliberately gave inaccurate information
regarding his age, and so should not be eligible for any form of assistance.

The appellant argues that Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 6, is applicable in this
case. This section establishes that if an individual deliberately induces another individual to
believe something to be true through their actions, statements, or failure to disclose
information, and the latter acts based on that belief, neither party nor their representatives can
subsequently dispute the veracity of that matter in any legal action or proceeding.

The appellant in Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose contends that the respondent is obligated
to reimburse the money that was given to him, as stipulated by Section 38 and Section 64 of

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-232-case-analysis-mohori-bibee-v-s-dharmodas-ghose.html (19th May

2024)
6
Indian Evidence Act, § 115, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India)

7
 the Indian Contract Act (1872)7 and Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act (1877)8.

Section 38 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, stipulates that if a promisor offers to perform their
part of the contract to the promisee and the offer is not accepted, the promisor is not held
responsible for non-performance and they do not lose their rights under the contract.

Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, states that when a person who has the option to
void a contract chooses to rescind it, the other party to the contract is not obligated to fulfill
any promises contained in the contract where they are the promisor.

Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, states that when a court cancels an instrument, it
can require the party that receives the relief to compensate the other party as justice may
require.

 Agruments of the Respondent:

Brahmo Dutta and his agent, Kedar Nath in Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose were aware of
the true age of the respondent.

Given that the respondent was a minor at the time that he had engaged into the mortgage, the
contract is ruled null and void.

Judgement of the Case

The Court of First Instance initially granted relief to the minor, Dharmodas Ghose. Subsequently,
Brahmo Dutt, the person who appealed the case, continued to pursue it in the Appellate Court,
where it was ultimately dismissed. Upon reaching the Privy Council, Brahmo Dutt had passed
away, and his wife, Mohori Bibee, along with Mr. Kedar Nath Mitter and Mr. Dedraj, succeeded
him.

7
Indian Contract Act, § 38, 64, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India)
8
Specific Relief Act, § 41, Acts of Parliament, 1877 (India)

8
The appellants, now represented by Mohori Bibee, contended that Dharmodas Ghose had attained
the age of majority at the time of entering into the mortgage agreement, but had deliberately
concealed this information and falsely portrayed himself as a minor. They argued that Dharmodas
would reach adulthood in just a few months. Furthermore, they asserted that Brahmo Dutt was not
aware of Dharmodas's minority status, and that the attribution of knowledge to Mr. Kedar Nath
should not automatically apply to Mr. Dedraj, who acted on behalf of Brahmo Dutt. They invoked
the rule of estoppel, asserting that Dharmodas could not claim a status that he did not have at the
time of the contract.9 Their plea sought Dharmodas's disentitlement from relief and his liability to
repay the advanced amount in accordance with the Indian Contract Act and the Specific Relief Act
of 1877.

The respondents reiterated the minority status of Dharmodas and contended that both Mr. Kedar
Nath and Mr. Dedraj were cognizant of this fact at the time of contract formation. They sought a
declaration of the mortgage agreement as void.

The Bench of Judges, consisting of Lord McNaughton, Lord Davey, Lord Lindley, Sir Ford North,
Sir Andrew Scoble, and Sir Andrew Wilson, noted that Mr. Dedraj and Mr. Kedar Nath acted
jointly on behalf of Brahmo Dutt, validating the imputation of minority knowledge to Mr. Dedraj.

While Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act establishes the rule of estoppel10, the Privy Council
deemed it inapplicable in this particular instance due to the mutual awareness of both parties
regarding Dharmodas's minority status. The case of Nelson v. Stocker11 was cited as an example
where estoppel was not upheld in situations involving individuals who were under the legal age of
adulthood. In addition, they considered Section 19 of the Indian Contract Act, which states that
agreements can only be regarded voidable if consent was not given freely12. If fraud or
misrepresentation does not have an impact on the consent given, the agreement will nonetheless be
considered void.

9
iPleaders Blog - Doctrine of estoppels, https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-estoppel-in-the-indian-evidence-act/ (19th
May 2024)
10
Indian Evidence Act, § 115, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India)
11
Nelson v. Stocker, 4 DeG&J 458 (1859)
12
Indian Contract Act, § 19, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India)

9
The appellants cited Section 64 of the Contract Act, which requires the restoration of benefits upon
rescission of a contract by the competent parties13. However, the Privy Council deemed this rule
irrelevant to transactions involving minors, upholding the lower court's ruling in favour of
Dharmodas, who was not obligated to repay the money that was given in advance.

Regarding the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the Privy Council noted that an individual can only
transfer property if they have the legal capacity to enter into a contract, as specified in Section 714.
Section 4 of the Indian Contract Act15 is included in this case, as it contains relevant clauses that
are applicable.

Upon examination of Sections 2, 10, and 11 of the Indian Contract Act16, the Council restated the
need that all parties involved in a contract must possess the necessary competence to enter into a
contract. Since a minor's agreement is void ab initio, there is no possibility of it being voidable.
According to Contract Law, a minor is not legally responsible for providing or paying for essential
items. The Council rejected the appellants' demand for reimbursement by citing the case of
Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society v. Thurstan17. This is because equity, as a legal
principle, cannot enforce transactions that have been deemed void by the legislature.

The Indian Majority Act of 1875 establishes the legal age at which individuals are considered
adults and minors for Indian residents18. The law of residence governs the determination of
competency under the Indian Contract Act, however its application may not be universal.
Exceptions to a minor's lack of legal capacity include situations where the minor assumes the role
of a promisee, derives advantages from a contract made by their guardian, or engages in an
apprentice contract as permitted under the Indian Apprenticeship Act of 185019.

The Privy Council acknowledged the provisions of Section 41 of the Special Relief Act of 1877,

13
Indian Contract Act, § 64, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India)
14
Transfer of Property Act, § 7, Acts of Parliament, 1882 (India)
15
Indian Contract Act, § 4, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India)
16
Indian Contract Act, § 2, 10, 11, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India)
17
Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society v. Thurstan, (1902) 1 Ch. 1
18
Indian Majority Act, Acts of Parliament, 1875 (India)
19
Indian Apprenticeship Act, Acts of Parliament, 1850 (India)

10
which obligates compensation when an instrument is cancelled20. However, they disallowed this
assertion, considering that Dharmodas was well aware of the advanced amount.

Ultimately, the contract entered into by Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, was void from the outset. The
Infants Relief Act of 1874 safeguards minors from exploitation by addressing their limited
comprehension and differentiation21. Thus, the Privy Council upheld the lower court's decision in
favour of Dharmodas Ghose.

20
Specific Relief Act, § 41, Acts of Parliament, 1877 (India)
21
Infants Relief Act, Acts of Parliament, 1874 (UK)

11
III. Chapter 3: Analysis of Jurisprudential School of Thought

The positivist school of jurisprudence emerges as a guiding principle in the judgment of Mohori
Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. Positivism, a legal philosophy advocated by Jeremy Bentham and
subsequently advanced by legal scholars like John Austin, posits that law is fundamentally the
command of the sovereign, enforced by the threat of punishment. This school of thought
emphasizes the importance of the actual existence and enforcement of laws over their moral or
ethical justifications.22

Jeremy Bentham, a key figure in the development of positivism, introduced the principle of utility,
which suggests that actions are morally right if they produce the greatest good for the greatest
number of people. Bentham's utilitarian philosophy greatly influenced the positivist approach to
law, emphasizing the importance of maximizing utility or happiness in legal decision-making.23

The court's ruling in the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose demonstrates a rigorous
respect to legal principles and procedural requirements, in line with the positivist perspective. The
court applies a strict interpretation of Contract Law and the Indian Contract Act of 1872, relying
solely on clear legal terms rather than taking moral or sociological factors into account.

The court's decision regarding Dharmodas Ghose's ability to make a contract is based on the legal
definition of being a minor as stated in the Indian Majority Act of 1875. The court assesses the
legality of the mortgage arrangement by applying legal principles based on statutes and precedents,
without considering wider social or ethical considerations.

Furthermore, the court's emphasis on the procedural requirements of contract formation, such as
the necessity of free consent and the capacity of the parties involved, underscores a positivist
approach to contract law. The judgement places a higher importance on enforcing legal laws and
obligations rather than considering subjective notions of fairness or equity.24

22
iPleaders Blog - Critical appraisal of various schools of jurisprudence, https://blog.ipleaders.in/critical-appraisal-
various-schools-jurisprudence/ (19th May 2024)
23
Legal Desire Media and Insights - Bentham’s Utilitarianism: Theory, Scope & Criticisms,
https://legaldesire.com/benthams-utilitarianism-theory-scope-criticisms/ (19th May 2024)
24
Suri Ratnapala, Jurisprudence, 3rd Edition, Cambridge University Press (2017)

12
In applying the principles of positivism to the case, the court demonstrates a commitment to
upholding the rule of law and ensuring legal certainty. The decision reflects a belief in the
supremacy of legal norms and the importance of adhering to established legal procedures, thereby
maintaining stability and predictability in the legal system.

By adopting positivism, the court confirms the idea that law is a result of human volition,
established and upheld by authoritative individuals in society. This approach emphasizes the
influence of laws and court rulings in developing legal regulations and principles. It underscores
the significance of following established legal standards to resolve conflicts and sustain societal
stability.25

In Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, the positivist approach underscores the significance of legal
formalism and the application of statutory law in judicial decision-making. While this approach
may prioritize legal certainty and stability, it also prompts inquiries about the possible constraints
of strictly adhering to formal legal rules without considering broader ethical or societal concerns.26

While the court's decision may align with the principles of positivist jurisprudence, it raises
questions about the ethical considerations surrounding legal judgements, specifically with the
handling of minors in contractual relationships. While it is crucial to maintain the rule of law and
adhere to legal procedures, it is as important to safeguard the vulnerable, particularly minors, from
being taken advantage of and treated unfairly in contractual agreements.

The case reveals a situation in which Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, became obligated by a mortgage
agreement under dubious circumstances. This raises significant problems regarding the fairness and
equity of such contracts when one party lacks the legal capacity to fully appreciate the
repercussions of their conduct. Although the court's decision may strictly conform to legal
definitions and statutes, it may not adequately address the underlying issues of exploitation and
vulnerability that are inherent in transactions involving minors.

25
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Legal Positivism, https://iep.utm.edu/legalpos/ (19th May 2024)
26
Frank I. Michelman, Constitutional Essentials: On the Constitutional Theory of Political Liberalism, Oxford
University Press (2022)

13
In my view, the court could have adopted a more nuanced approach that balances legal formalities
with considerations of fairness and justice, particularly in instances involving individuals under the
age of majority. This could entail interpreting the law in a way that gives priority to safeguarding
the interests of minors and ensuring that they are not unfairly put at a disadvantage in contractual
agreements. By acknowledging the natural disparity in power between minors and adults, the court
could have applied legal principles in a manner that mitigates the potential for exploitation and
injustice.

Moreover, the judgement could have conducted a more thorough analysis of the wider social and
economic circumstances that influenced the formation of the contract, recognizing the imbalanced
power dynamics between the parties. An all-encompassing analysis of the issue would have
enabled the court to take into account not just the legal technicalities but also the moral
consequences of its ruling, so fostering both legal definiteness and ethical soundness.

In essence, although the court's decision may align with the principles of positivist jurisprudence, it
emphasizes the importance of carefully assessing the ethical aspects of legal judgements. By giving
priority to safeguarding vulnerable individuals, including minors, and taking into account the wider
societal consequences of legal rulings, the court can uphold the principles of fairness, justice, and
social equity. When courts make decisions, it is crucial for them to find a careful equilibrium that
guarantees both legal validity and ethical purity, while dealing with the complex interplay between
law, ethics, and social justice.

14
VI. Chapter 4: Conclusion

The case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose stands as a landmark decision in Indian contract
law, fundamentally shaping the understanding of contractual capacity and the protection of minors.
The Privy Council's judgment in this case underscores the importance of legal formalism and the
application of statutory law, reflecting the principles of positivist jurisprudence. By adhering
strictly to the legal definitions and procedural requirements established by the Indian Contract Act
of 1872 and the Indian Majority Act of 1875, the court aimed to maintain legal certainty and
uphold the rule of law.

Positivist Jurisprudence and Legal Formalism

The positivist school of thought, which influenced the judgment, emphasizes that law is the
command of the sovereign, enforced through the threat of punishment. This approach focuses on
the existence and enforcement of laws rather than their moral or ethical justifications. The Privy
Council’s decision aligns with this philosophy by strictly interpreting the statutory provisions
related to contractual capacity. By doing so, the court highlighted the importance of legal
formalism, where the emphasis is placed on the precise application of legal rules and procedures.

The court's reliance on the statutory definition of a minor and the application of procedural
requirements such as free consent and capacity of parties reflect a positivist approach. By adhering
to these legal principles, the court ensured that the decision was based on established legal norms,
thereby contributing to the stability and predictability of the legal system. This approach
underscores the significance of legal certainty, which is essential for the effective functioning of
any legal system.

Protection of Vulnerable Parties

While the court’s decision aligns with positivist jurisprudence, it raises important questions about
the protection of vulnerable parties in contractual relationships. In this case, Dharmodas Ghose, a
minor, was bound by a mortgage agreement that he lacked the legal capacity to fully understand.
The court’s strict adherence to legal formalism did not adequately address the issue of exploitation

15
and the inherent power imbalance between the parties.

The decision highlights the limitations of a purely positivist approach, which prioritizes legal
certainty over broader ethical and societal considerations. While maintaining the rule of law is
crucial, it is equally important to protect vulnerable individuals from exploitation. The case of
Dharmodas Ghose illustrates the potential for unfairness when legal formalism is applied without
considering the broader context and the moral implications of the decision.

Balancing Legal Formalism with Ethical Considerations

The court could have adopted a more nuanced approach that balances legal formalities with
considerations of fairness and justice, particularly in cases involving minors. By interpreting the
law in a manner that prioritizes the protection of minors, the court could have ensured that
vulnerable individuals are not unfairly disadvantaged in contractual agreements. Recognizing the
natural disparity in power between minors and adults is essential for mitigating the potential for
exploitation and injustice.

A more balanced approach would involve a thorough analysis of the wider social and economic
circumstances that influence the formation of contracts. By considering the imbalanced power
dynamics between the parties, the court could have taken into account not only the legal
technicalities but also the moral and ethical consequences of its ruling. This approach would foster
both legal certainty and ethical soundness, ensuring that the principles of fairness and justice are
upheld.

Implications for Future Jurisprudence

The decision in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose has far-reaching implications for the
development of contract law and the protection of vulnerable parties. By emphasizing the
importance of legal capacity and the need for free consent in contract formation, the judgment has
established fundamental principles that continue to influence Indian contract law. However, the
case also serves as a reminder of the need to balance legal formalism with ethical considerations.

16
Future jurisprudence should strive to find a careful equilibrium that ensures both legal validity and
ethical purity. Courts should recognize the complex interplay between law, ethics, and social
justice, and aim to protect the interests of vulnerable individuals while maintaining the rule of law.
By doing so, the legal system can achieve a more holistic and just approach to resolving disputes.

Recommendations for Legal Reform

The case also highlights the need for legislative reforms to enhance the protection of minors and
other vulnerable parties in contractual agreements. While the Indian Contract Act of 1872 provides
a framework for contractual capacity, there is scope for strengthening these provisions to prevent
exploitation and ensure fairness.

One potential reform could involve the introduction of specific safeguards for minors in contractual
agreements. This could include mandatory disclosures and independent legal advice for minors
entering into contracts, ensuring that they fully understand the implications of their decisions.
Additionally, the law could provide for more stringent penalties for parties who knowingly exploit
minors in contractual relationships.

Furthermore, legislative reforms could aim to enhance the court's ability to consider broader ethical
and social considerations in contract disputes. By providing clear guidelines for balancing legal
formalism with ethical considerations, the law can empower courts to make more nuanced
decisions that uphold both legal and moral principles.

To sum up, the Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose case was a turning point in the development of
Indian contract law. It shows the principles of positivist jurisprudence and how important legal
procedure is. The court's decision emphasized legal certainty and the rule of law, but it also showed
how a positivist view alone can't solve problems of exploitation and vulnerability. Future
jurisprudence can make sure that the legal system supports the principles of fairness, justice, and
social equity by taking a more balanced view that takes both legal and moral factors into account.
Reforms to the law can make it even better at protecting vulnerable parties, making sure that the
law evolves to fit the needs of a fair and just society.

17
Bibliography

Cases Referred

 Mohori Bibee & Anr. v. Dharmodas Ghose, [1903] UKPC 12

 Nelson v. Stocker, 4 DeG&J 458 (1859)
 Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society v. Thurstan, (1902) 1 Ch. 1

Statutes Referred

 Indian Contract Act, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India)

 Indian Evidence Act, Acts of Parliament, 1872 (India)
 Specific Relief Act, Acts of Parliament, 1877 (India)
 Transfer of Property Act, Acts of Parliament, 1882 (India)
 Indian Majority Act, Acts of Parliament, 1875 (India)
 Indian Apprenticeship Act, Acts of Parliament, 1850 (India)
 Infants Relief Act, Acts of Parliament, 1874 (UK)

Sources Referred

Books:

 R.K. Bangia, Contract, 9th Edition, Allahabad Law Agency (2023)

 Avtar Singh, Contract & Specific Relief, 13th Edition, Eastern Book Company (2022)
 Suri Ratnapala, Jurisprudence, 3rd Edition, Cambridge University Press (2017)
 Frank I. Michelman, Constitutional Essentials: On the Constitutional Theory of Political
Liberalism, Oxford University Press (2022)

18
Websites:

 Legal Service India - Case Analysis-Mohori Bibee v/s Dharmodas Ghose,

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-232-case-analysis-mohori-bibee-v-s-
dharmodas-ghose.html (19th May 2024).
 iPleaders Blog - Doctrine of estoppels, https://blog.ipleaders.in/doctrine-of-estoppel-in-the-
indian-evidence-act/ (19th May 2024).
 iPleaders Blog - Critical appraisal of various schools of jurisprudence,
https://blog.ipleaders.in/critical-appraisal-various-schools-jurisprudence/ (19th May 2024).
 Legal Desire Media and Insights - Bentham’s Utilitarianism: Theory, Scope & Criticisms,
https://legaldesire.com/benthams-utilitarianism-theory-scope-criticisms/ (19th May 2024).
 Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy - Legal Positivism, https://iep.utm.edu/legalpos/ (19th
May 2024).

19