SCHOOL OF LAW

Kiit deemed to be UNIVERSITY

BHUBANESWAR-74

Subject Name and Code-Law of Contract [LW1011]

Mode of Assessement- Case Commentaryy Submission

Name Of The Case- Mohori Bibee VS Dharmodas Ghosh

Submitted To-

Ms.Jinia Kundu

Assistant Professor-II

School of Law

KIIT Deemed to be university

Bhubaneswar

Submitted By-

Shriya Salini Routray

Roll no-2082089

Semester: 1st

Course:B.B.A.LL.B.(B)

PHONE-7008570393
Mohori Bibee v/s Dharmodas Ghose

CITATION: (1903) ILR 30 Cal 539 (PC)

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or improper and as a result of which such contract should be revoked or rescinded.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.

The plaintiff argued or confronted that in such case no relaxation or any sought of aid should be
provided to them because according to him,defendant had deceitfully or dishonestly
misinterpreted the fact about his age and because if mortgage is cancelled at the request by
defendant i.e. Dharmodas Ghose.

Argument of the appellant-

 The respondent was a major when he executed the mortgage.

 Neither the appellant nor his agent had any notice that the respondent was a minor.

 The respondent made a fraudulent declaration regarding his age and is hence dis-entitled
from seeking any relief.

 The respondent is stopped by section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 from
claiming that he was a minor at the time of executing the mortgage.

 The respondent must repay the amount advanced according to section 64 and 38 of Indian
Contract Act (1872) and section 41 of Specific Relief Act (1877).

Argument of the respondent-

 Brahmo Dutta and his agents Kedar Nath possessed knowledge of the respondent’s actual
age.

 Since the respondent was a minor at the executing the mortgage, the contract is void.

ISSUES RAISED:

Issues Raised in this case were:-

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?

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.

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 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:
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[7]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.
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 Õxed 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 were 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.
ANALYSIS:
In the case of Mohori Bibee V/S Dharmodas Ghose, the Privy Council stated that any type of
contract or agreement with a minor or with any infant shall be null and void. All contacts with
the minors will be void ab-initio. Majority Act, 1875 figured the definition of a minor, according
to the act, any person who is below the age of 18 years or has not completed the age of 18 years
shall not be competent to create or enter into any sought of contact or agreement.
According to me any contract in which a minor is party to contract or whether he/she is involved
in it shall be void. Because a minor is not that mature to come into a contract.They don’t give
their free consent. An agreement is a deal where free an equal consent of all parties are given but
in case of a minor there consent can be dominated by major ones as a result of which , it leads to
the violation of one of the condition to form a contract, i.e. free consent (a consent is said to be
free when it is not caused by Coercion, Undue Influence, Fraud, Miss representation.
According to me, minors contract should be be avoided and stopped because it can sometimes go
against the norms of the society. Any such person who commits such offence shall be strictly
punished by court of law, either through imprisonment or with a fine or with both according to
the ambit of the offence committed by the major person.