Mohori Bibee V Dharmodas | சிறியவர்களுடன் ஒப்பந்தம் செய்ய வேண்டாம் |Don't Make Contract with minors

For training contact us @ [phone]
Follow me :
Facebook @A.C.NAkshathra
Instagram @memorynakshathra
Mohori Bibee V/S Dharmodas Ghose is a case that covers the ambi| 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 with a minor ( a person who is below the age of 18 yrs. or any person who has not completed 18 yrs. of age legally) is void ab-initio (void from very beginning) such rules and regulations are made because, according to law such people does not comes under the ambit of capacity of contract or agreement of doing so.
According to courts opinion, any person who is below 18 yrs of age or who has not completed the age of 18 yrs. of age i.e. a minor cannot intend to create contract or make major decisions. This case has basically provided us with the knowledge that, since minors are legally incompetent to give their assent so they need to deserve or be provide with the protection in their dealings with the other major persons. After this case , any sought of contact or agreement with the minor was void from beginning. Such contracts are "void ab-initio".
In this case, the Privy Council declared the law that any contact by minor or any minor's agreement is "absolutely void" and it has also been strictly followed and is still growing also.Section 10[3]of Indian Contact Act, 1872 provides for what agreements are contracts? and Section 11[4] provides that a person who are competent to contract.
Facts:-
The facts of this case were as follows:-
v 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.
v 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.
v 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.
v 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.
v but the proportion or sum of loan that was actually provided was less than Rs. 20,000.
v 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.
v 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.
v 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.
v 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.
Issues Raised:-
Issues Raised in this case were:-
v Whether the deed was void under section 2, 10[5], 11[6], of Indian Contract Act, 1872 or not?
v Whether the defendant was liable to return the amount of loan which he had received by him under such deed or mortgage or not?
v Whether the mortgage commenced by the defendant was voidable or not?
Judgement:-
v 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.
v When Brahmo Dutta was not satisfied with the verdict of Trial Court he filled an appeal in the Calcutta High Court.
v 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.
v 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.
v The final decision that was passed by the Council were :-
Any sought of contract with a minor or infant is void/ void ab-initio