CRITICAL Analysis on

MOHORI BIBEE v. DHARMODAS

GHOSE(1903)

By Aparna .S. Joshi

1
 introduction

Mohiri Bibee V/s Dharmodas Ghose

(1903) is a landmark case that covers
the ambit on minor’s agreement.
The Judgment pronounced in this case
makes it clear that Agreement with a
Minor is Void ab initio.

2
Lord North observed that
“ Looking at section 11 their lordships are
satisfied that the Act makes it essential that
• all contracting parties should be competent to
contract and
•expressly provides that a person who by reason
of infancy is incompetent to contract cannot
make a contract within the meaning of this Act.
The question whether a contract is void or
voidable presupposes the existence of a contract
within the meaning of the Act, and cannot arise
in the case of an infant”.
3
CHARACTERS OF THE CASE

MOHORI BIBEE v. DHARMODAS GHOSE

DHARMODAS BHRAMA BHUTT

GHOSE(MINOR) (MONEYLENDER)

JAGENDRA NANDINI KEDARNA MOHIRI BIBEE

(WIFE AND
(MOTHER AND TH EXECUTER AFTER
BHRAMABHUTT’S
LEGAL GUARDIAN) (AGENT) DEATH)

4
Nature of minor’s agreement
 Section 10 requires that the parties to a contract need to be
competent to contract.

 Section 11 declares that minor is not competent to contract.

 But neither section makes it clear whether, if minor enters into

agreement, it would be voidable at his option or void
altogether?

 The Indian Contract Act,1872, does not have any provision to

answer this question.

 The absence of any statutory provision had created

controversy on the nature of minor’s agreement. 5
 FLOW CHART
1.MORTGAGES IMMOVABLE PROPERTY
FOR Rs.12000/-
DHARMODAS GHOSH KEDARNATH( AGENT)
(MINOR) 2. GETS RS 10500/- AMOUNT

4.KEDARNATH SECRETLY GETS A

RESIDENT DECLARATAION FROM
OF DHARMODAS THAT HE IS MINOR
HOWRAH AND WILL TAKE REMAINING BHRAMADUTT
AMOUNT ON ATTAINING MAJORITY (MONEYLENDER)

OWNER OF OWNER 3.MOTHER SENDS LEGAL

OF SEVERAL NOTICE TO KEDARNATH
MOVABLE AND REGARDING MINORITY
IMMOVABLE OF DHARMODAS MOHORI BIBEE( WIFE
PROPERTIES OF BHRAMABHUTT)
JAGENDRA NANDINI
( MOTHER AND LEGAL
GUARDIAN) 5.DHARMODAS FILES
SUIT TO CANCEL THE
CONTRACT 6
 FACTS OF THE CASE
 Initially Dharmodas Ghose, was the plaintiff in this
case. He was a minor (i.e. has had not completed
the 18 years of age) and he was the sole owner of
his immovable property.
 The mother of Dharmodas Ghose ( Jagendra
Nandini) was authorized as his legal custodian by
Calcutta High Court.
 Dharmodas Ghose mortgaged his immovable
property in favour of the defendant, Bhramo
Dutt , a moneylender for Rs20000/-.
7
FACTS OF THE CASE
 Part of the money Rs10500/- was already advanced to Dharmodas
as part of this mortgage deed.

 When the mother of Dharmodas Ghose ( Jagendra Nandini) came

to know of this she issued a notice to Kedarnath ( who was the
Agent/Attorney of Bharmo Dutt )informing him about the minority
of Dharmodas Ghose on the date on which such mortgage deed
was commenced.

 After that, on 10thSept. 1895 Dharmodas Ghose along with his

mother brought about an action against Brahmo Dutt (money-
lender) stating that he was a minor when the mortgage deed was
executed by him and therefore, the mortgage was void and
inoperative and should be cancelled under Section 39, Specific
Relief act. 8
FACTS OF THE CASE
 When this petition or claim was in process, Brahmo Dutt had
died and then further the appeal or petition was litigated or
indicted by his executor and wife ( Mohori Bibee).

 The defendant( money-lender) contended that

1.The minor(Dharmodas Ghose) had fraudulently
misrepresented his age , the law of estoppel (section 115 of
Indian Evidence Act) should be applied against him. In other
words he should not be allowed to plead on the basis of his
minority and no relief should be given to him.

2.Mortgage cancellation is at the request of Dharmodas so

minor should be asked to refund the loan of Rs10500/-, which he
had taken under Section 64 and Section 65 of ICA. 9
FACTS OF THE CASE

3.The money-lender also claimed the refund of

the mortgage money under another provision
Section 41, Specific Relief Act which gives
discretion to court to order compensation on
cancelling an instrument.

10
 ISSUES RAISED
Issues Raised in this case were:-

 Whether the deed was void under section 2, 10, 11, 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?
11
 PRINCIPLES OF LAW
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

the case of a voidable contract. Minor’s agreement being
void Section 64 does not apply.

 Section 65 was not applicable here as there never was

and never could have been a contract.

12
 Majority act
Majority Act, 1875:-

Majority Act, 1875 was enforced on 2ndMarch 1857. It is a law that was enacted to
introduce various laws relating to the "law of majority".

 Prior to the enactment of this act, there was no surety or certainty about the age
limit of attaining majority.
 This act has basically fixed the age limit of attaining majority and i.e. 18 years of
age. It states that, every single person who is domiciled in India can only achieve
the age of majority only after the completion of age of 18 years, and not before that
at any cost.
 There comes an exception in the case were any particular personal law provides the
age of attaining majority only and if not provided than, else any person domiciled
by India shall only achieve majority after the completion of 18 years of age.
 In the case where the guardian or a custodian is appointed by any court of justice
for a minor in case of a person or his property or for both before the age of 18 years,
then in such a case the age of majority would be after attaining the age of 21 years
instead of attaining 18 years of age.
13
 JUDGEMENT
 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.

 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.

.
14
JUDGEMENT
 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 is 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(Principle of Estoppels does not apply
to a Minor)
.
15
CRITICAL ANALYSIS
 Totally agree with the Judgment as it has cleared the
controversy surrounding the Nature of Minor’s Agreement
by clearly ruling that Agreement with Minor is void-ab-
initio.
 When a minor is not competent to contract, how can there
be a contract ?If there is no contract in the first place how
can it be voidable? Thus the agreement with a Minor is
clearly void.
 This judgment protects minor’s interest by preventing
people from taking undue advantage of minor’s
property ,as they know they will lose their investment due
to void nature of the agreement.
16
 critical analysis

 The privy council did not consider it necessary to decide whether section 115 of Indian
Evidence Act( Law of Estoppels) was applicable to this case because the money-lender was
not mis-lead by the false statement by the minor as he was aware of the age of the
borrower.

From various decisions of different High courts, there is a consensus that law of estoppels
do not apply to a minor. In this case as well the same ruling applied and so Dharmodas was
not liable to refund the loan amount.

A minor is allowed to plead minority as a defense to avoid liability under an agreement

even though he falsely stated that he has attained the age of majority. Therefore it was
correct for the court to rule .

17
critical analysis

 Section 64 relates to voidable contracts. As minor’s agreement is void,

Section 64 was not applicable to the case . Therefore minor could not
be asked to pay money under this section. This is correct , as
agreement with Minor is void.

 Section 65 relates to restoration of benefits or compensation to void

agreements /contracts. Here as well the court ruled that in case of
minor there never was and never could have been any contract and
therefore the minor could not be asked to pay any compensation.

 Section 41 of SRA, compensation or relief on cancellation of

instrument. Here as well, no relief was given as the money was
advanced to minor with full knowledge of his infancy. This case has
totally discouraged contract with minors and is protecting the interest
of minors. 18
CONCLUSION

In Mohori Bibee V/S Dharmodas Ghose,.

 At the end it can be concluded that any agreement or deed in which
minor is party to it or is included in such contract by any way, such deed
or agreement shall be declared null and void because such agreement is
no agreement in the eyes of law
 Any agreement with an infant cannot be administered against them. In
such cases minors parents or custodians shall not be liable for the
dealings done by the minor without their consent or knowledge, and
hence they will not be liable to return the amount back taken by the
minor out of the moral obligations.
 But parents and guardians will be liable to repay back the amount when
minor or an infant acted with the consent of his/her parents or his/ her
custodians.
 If any minor has got any profit out of the void contract the he/she
cannot be forced to reimburse it back or make compensation for it. 19
References

 Contract & Specific Relief(Avatar Singh).

 Legalservicesindia.com.
 Contract-Dr .R .K.Bangia’s.
 YouTube case study by Advocate Sanyog
Vyas.

20
Thank you

21