| Citation | (1903) ILR 30 Cal 539 (PC) | |
| Date of judgement | 04 March 1903 | |
| Court | Privy council | |
| Appellant | MOHORI BIBEE | |
| Respondent | DHARMADAS GHOSE | |
| Judge(s) | Lord McNaughton, Lord Davey, Lord Lindley, Sir Ford North, Sir Andrew Scoble, Sir Andrew Wilson. |
Introduction
Different aspects of the idea of minor are covered by legislation. Laws governing juveniles differ from those governing adults. A minor in India is someone under the age of 18 years old. Minority is distinct because it is widely held that those who have not reached a particular degree of maturity lack the mental capacity to carry out specific tasks or obligations. This maturity level is typically assumed to be above the age of 18, meaning that a person who has reached this age has developed a particular degree of thinking. The age of 18 is a barrier imposed by the law, whether it be in contract law, civil law, or criminal law, albeit this may not always be the case.
According to India’s contract law, which is codified in the Indian Contract Act of 1872, a person who has not reached the age of majority, or 18 years old, is ineligible to enter into a contract. As a result, any contract entered into by a person who was a minor at the time of doing so would be invalid, meaning it will have no legal weight and cannot be enforced in a court of law. Nobody can bring the contract to court to have their obligations upheld or their rights enforced. The Indian courts have upheld this position several times; one such instance was Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, which served as an early example.
Facts
The respondent in this case, Dharmodas Ghose, was underage and the sole owner of his immovable property, which was situated in Calcutta. The only protector of such land was his mother. The defendant signed a mortgage deed on July 20th, 1895, in behalf of the plaintiff, Brahmo Dutt, and secured a sum of Rs. 20,000 with 12% interest. The responder was under the age of majority when he or she made the mortgage. While Brahmo Dutt was gone, his lawyer Kedar Nath Mitter handled the mortgage deal, and his manager Dedraj provided the funding. According to what is allegedly claimed by the respondent’s mother, Smt. Jogendranandini Dasi, during the consideration of the transaction, she had written a letter to Mr. Kedar Nath Mitter via her attorney, Mr. Bhupendra Nath Bose, stating the respondent’s minor status and stating that the lender would be responsible for the loan’s repayment and Dharmodas Ghose would not be held liable. Despite being aware of the respondent’s underage status, Kedar Nath continued the mortgage and, after giving them assurance, inserted a statement from the respondent stating that the respondent had reached the age of majority.
However, Dharmodas Ghose and his mother filed a lawsuit against Brahmo Dutt on September 10th, 1895, asking for the declaration of the mortgage as void due to the respondent’s infancy.
Issues
- Whether the contract by a minor be considered void or voidable?
- Whether Dharmodas Ghose is liable for the repayment of the amount received by him?
Judgement
According to the Trial Court’s ruling, the mortgage deed or contract that the plaintiff and defendant entered into was invalid since it was executed by a person who was a minor at the time.
Brahmo Dutta appealed to the Calcutta High Court when the Trial Court’s decision did not satisfy him.
The appeal of Brahmo Dutta was rejected by the Calcutta High Court because it agreed with the judgement rendered by the trial court.
He then appealed to the Privy Council, which eventually denied it together with Brahmo Dutta’s appeal and ruled that no contract could be sought between a juvenile and an adult.
The council’s ultimate conclusion included the following:
Any agreement made with a child or minor is void or void ab initio (void from the start).
As a result of the minor’s incapacity to make the mortgage, the contract that was established or initiated is likewise void and illegal in the eyes of the law.
The fact that Dharmodas Gosh, a minor, was not bound by the commitment made in a contract means that he cannot be made to return the money that was advanced to him.
Conclusion
In Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, it was ultimately determined that any contract or deed in which a minor is a party or is contained therein would be deemed void since such a contract is not a contract under the law. Parents or guardians of minors are not responsible for the dealings the minor makes without their permission, and they are also not responsible for returning any money the child has taken as a result of a moral responsibility.
Reference
This Article is written by Chahak Agarwal of Lloyd school of law , greater Noida, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
0 Comments