Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose - Ilr (Indian law report) 1903 30 cal 539 (PC) - Minor's Agreement Landmark case.
Introduction :
This is a case that the ambit of minors agreement. This case basically deals with a minor's contract or a contract with a minor. In India, an agreement or a contract within a minor (a person who is below the age of 18 years or any person who has not completed 18 years of age legally) is void. This case has basically provided us with the knowledge that, since minors legally in competent to give their assent so they need to deserve or be provide with the protection in their dealings with other major persons.
In this case, the Privy council declared the law that any contract by minor or any minor's agreement is "absolutely void" and it has also been strictly followed. Section 10 (3) of Indian Contract Act, 1872 provides for what agreement's are contract and section 11 (4) for provides that a person who are competent to contract.
Read Also : || WazirX Account Opening Full Process - Step By Step Guide ||
Facts :-
The facts of this case were as follows -
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 Ghosh was authorised as his legal custodian by Calcutta High Court).
When he went from the mortgage of his own immovable property which was done in the favour of appellant (i.e. Brahmo Dutta) he was a minor and he secured this mortgage deed for Rs. 20000/- at 12% interest rate per year.
Bhramo Dutta who a money lender at the time and he secured a lone on amount of Rs. 20000/- and the mortgage of his business was in the control of Kedar Nath and and Kedar Nath acted as the autonomy 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 on some of loan that was actually provided was less than 20000/-.
The negotiator or representative of the defendant, who actually acted instead of an behalf of money lender has given money on some to the plaintiff, who was a minor and he fully had knowledge about the incompetency of the plaintiff to perform on enter into contract and also that he was incompetent legally to mortgage his property which belonged to him.
After that, on 10th Sep. 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, Brahma Dutta had died and then further the appeal or partition was litigated or indicated by his executor's (His spouse Mohari Bibee).
Issues Raised in this case were -
(i) Whether the deed was void under section 2, 10(5), 11(6) of Indian Contract Act, 1872 or not ?
(ii) Whether the defendant was liable to return the amount of loan which he had received by him under such did or mortgage or not ?
(iii) Whether the mortgage commence by the defendant was voidable or not ?
Judgement :-
According to the 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.
Also read : || Voidable Contract Meaning, Explanation with Case Law ||
When Mohari Bibee was not satisfied with 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 Mohari Bibee. Then she later when to Privy Council for the appeal and later the Privy Council also dismissed the appeal of mahari Bibee and sought of contract between a minor and major person.
The final decision that was passed by the Council were :-
(i) Any sought of contract with a minor of Infant is void/void ab-initio (void from beginning)
(ii) Since minor was in in competent to make such mortgage, hence this contract such made or commenced shall also be void and it not valid in the eyes of law.
(iii) The minor i.e. Dhrmodas Ghosh can't 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.
Another Post : || IPC Section 228A हिंदी में (In Hindi) ||
Principles of Law :-
The Principles of law that were laid down in this case are :
Any contract with minor or an infant is neither valid nor voidable but is void ab-initio (void from beginning). Section 64(7) Indian Contract Act, 1872 is only applicable in the case, where the parties entering in contract are competent to make where there is no contract made at all.
Conclusion :-
In Mohari Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose, at the end it can be concluded that any agreement or deed in which minor is party to it, such deed or agreement shall be declared null and void because such agreement is no agreement in the eye of law.
Visit Also : || A Health And Fitness 💪 Blog ||