MOHORI BIBEE v/s DHARMADAS GHOSE (1903)

Citation	[1903] UKPC 12, (1903) LR 30 IA 114
Date Of Judgement	4 March, 1903
Court	Privy Council
Appellant	Mohori Bibee
Respondent	Dharmadas Ghose
Bench	Lord McNaughtonLord DaveyLord LindleySir Ford NorthSir Andrew ScobleSir Andrew Wilson.
Held by	Sir Ford North
Referred	Section- 38,41,68 of the Indian Contract Act,1972

INTRODUCTION 

Mohori Bibee V/S Dharmodas Ghose is a case that covers the extent of a minor agreement. This case basically deals with a minor’s settlement or a contract with a minor. In India, a settlement or an agreement with a minor (a person who’s beneath the age of 18 years. or any person who has not finished 18 years. of age legally) is void ab initio (void from the very beginning) Minority is distinguished because it is a general belief that those who have not attained a certain maturity level do not possess the cognitive capacity to perform certain acts or certain duties. Generally, the maturity level is presumed to be above the age of 18 years, i.e. a person who has attained the age of 18 has acquired a certain level of reasoning.

In this case, the Privy Council held that any contact made by a minor or by any minor’s agreement is “absolutely void” and it has also been strictly followed and is still growing also. This means that if a person, at the point of entering a contract, was a minor, then that contract will be void, which means that it will not have any legal standing and cannot be enforced in a court of law. 

FACTS OF THE CASE

Dharmodas Ghose, the respondent in this case was a minor, and the sole owner of his immovable property, which was located in Calcutta. Dharmodas Ghose’s mother was authorized as his legal custodian by the Calcutta High Court.

On 20th July 1895, the respondent executed a mortgage deed of his own immovable property which was done in the favour of the appellant i.e. Brahmo Dutta and secured an amount of twenty thousand along with twelve percent interest. Bhramo Dutta who was a money lender at that time secured a loan 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. The attorney of Brahmo Dutta, Kedarnath had complete knowledge about the minority and incompetency of Dharmodas Ghose to enter into a  contract related to such immovable property, nevertheless, she entered into a contract.

However, on 10th September 1895, an action was brought against Brahmo Dutt by Dharmodas Ghose and his mother, which called for the declaration of the mortgage as void, owing to the respondent’s minority as the contract was commenced when he was a minor, 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 executors.

The plaintiff argued that no relaxation should be provided to them because there is dishonest or deceitful misrepresentation by the defendant about his age and because of this mortgage is cancelled at the request of the defendant i.e., Dharmodas Ghose. 

Mohori Bibee is the appellate of the case but she is the executive and legal representative of Brahmo Dutta.

ISSUE RAISED 

• Whether the mortgage commenced by the defendant was voidable or not?
• Whether the defendant is liable to return the amount of loan which he had received under such deed or mortgage or not?
• Whether the deed was void under sections 2, 10, 11, of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 or not?

CONTENTIONS 

Plaintiffs’ argument:

1. The appellant did not have any knowledge about the minority of the respondents.

2. The respondents had fraudulently depicted Dharmodas to be a major and competent to a contract.

3. The respondent under Section 115[2] of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is prohibited from claiming that he was a minor at the time of entering the contract.

4. The respondent must repay the amount devised according to Section 64[3] and 38[4] of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 and Section 41[5] of the Specific Relief Act, 1877.

Defendants Argument:

1. Kedar Nath was well aware of the fact that Dharmodas was a minor at the time of executing the deed as informed by his mother.

2. Since the respondent was minor at the date of the contract, the contract is void.

JUDGEMENT

As per the verdict of the Trial court, the contract was declared to be void. It was held that the deed executed between the plaintiff and the defendant was void on the grounds that the person who executed it was a minor at the time of the execution of such mortgage.

Brahmo Dutt dissatisfied with the verdict of the Trial court, filed an appeal in Calcutta High Court. However, the Calcutta High Court upheld the decision given by the Trial Court and declared the contract to be void.

Brahmo Dutt further appealed to the Privy Council and his appeal was dismissed on the following grounds:

a)      There cannot be a contract between a minor and a major person. 

b)      Any contract with a minor or infant is void ab initio.

c)      Since a minor is considered incompetent to enter a contract as per Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 therefore, such a contract will be void in the eyes of the law.

d)      The respondent cannot be forced to give back the amount of money that was advanced to him by Brahmo Dutt since he is not bound by the promise executed through a void contract.

CONCLUSION

In Mohori Bibee V/S Dharmodas Ghose, in the end, it can be concluded that any agreement or deed in which the minor is a party to or is included in such contact in 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 cases of 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 moral obligations. But parents and guardians will be liable to repay back the amount when a minor or an infant acts with the consent of his/her parents or his/ her custodians. If any minor has got any profit out of the void contract he/she cannot be forced to reimburse it back or make compensation for it.

REFERENCE

https://www.legalserviceindia.com/legal/article-232-case-analysis-mohori-bibee-v-s-dharmodas-ghose.html

https://lawcorner.in/mohori-bibee-v-dharmodas-ghose-case-analysis/

https://www.legallore.info/post/mohori-bibee-v-dharmodas-ghose

This Article is written by Tanya Baweja of Maharaja Agrasen Institute Of Management Studies, a Legal intern at Legal Vidhya.