Skip to content
LL.B Mania
LL.B Mania

MSME (UAM No. JH-04-0001870)

  • About
    • Core Team
    • Public Relations & Media
    • Editorial Board [BLOG]
    • Advisory Board
  • OpEd
  • BLOG
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution
    • Business Law
    • Case Analysis
    • Contract Law
    • Constitutional Law
    • Company Law
    • Competition Law
    • Consumer Law
    • Civil Law
    • CLAT
    • Criminal Law
    • Cyber Law
    • Environmental Law
    • Evidence Law
    • Family Law
    • Health Law
    • Hindu Law
    • Human Rights Law
    • International Law
    • Intellectual Property Law
    • Insolvency & Bankruptcy Law
    • Judiciary
    • Law of Contracts
    • Mergers & Acquisitions
    • Sports Law
    • Technology Law
    • Tort Law
  • Interview
  • Testimonials
  • Contact
    • Publish with Us
LL.B Mania
LL.B Mania

MSME (UAM No. JH-04-0001870)

March 29, 2021

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose(1903)

By Amit Sheoran (Symbiosis Law School, Nagpur)

Appellant:-Mohori Bibee

Respondent:-DharmodasGhose

Bench:-Sir Andrew Scoble, Lord Lindley, Lord Davy, Sir Andrew Wilson, Lord Mcnaughton, Sir Ford North

Facts of the case

In this case, Dharmodas was the defendant. He was minor and he was also the sole owner of the property (immovable). As per Calcutta High court, The mother of Dharmodas has authorized as his legal custodian. One day Dharmodas mortgaged his property for taking a loan with Bharmo Dutt. He was minor when he mortgages his property with Dharmodas. He secured his mortgaged deed at the rate of 12% interest on 20,000. Bharmo Dutt was moneylender when he signed a mortgage with Dharmodas. Kedar Nath acted as the attorney or agent of Bharmo Dutt. One day respondent mother sent a notification to Bharmo Dutt about telling about the minority of Dharmodas at the time of mortgaged deed and also said the loan amount was less than 20,000. Kedar Nath was aware of the fact that respondent was minor at the time of mortgage deed and he was not entitled to make a contract with him and also not entitled to mortgage his property.

Dharmodas along with his mother brought legal action against the BharmoDutt on 10 September 1985 by saying that he was minor at the time of mortgage of the property that’s why the contract is void and should be revoked. When the petition was in process, BharmoDutt died and the remaining petition was litigated by his agent Kedar Nath.

Issues of the Case

  1. Whether the mortgage deed was void or not that was signed between Dharmodas and Bharmo Dutt, under section 2, 10, and 11 of the Indian Contract Act 1972.
  2. Whether the respondent was liable to return the loan amount or not that was received at the time of the mortgaged deed.
  3. Whether the mortgage deed commenced by Dharmodas was avoidable or not.  

The argument of Plaintiff

  1. Dharmodas was major at the time of mortgage of property.
  2. Appellant and his agent were not aware of the fact that the respondent was minor at the time of the mortgaged deed.
  3. Respondent made a fraudulent statement about the age that’s why not entitled to take the relief of age.
  4. Rule of estoppel should be applied to respondent under the section of 115 of the Indian Evidence Act 1972.
  5. Respondent is liable to pay the entire amount that he takes during the mortgaged deed under section 38, 64 of the Indian Contract Act 1872 and section 41 of the Specific Relief Act 1877.

The argument of Respondent

  1. Bharmodas and his agent were aware of the fact that the respondent was minor at the time of the mortgaged deed.
  2. Respondent was minor at the time of mortgage deed that’s why no contract takes place and not entitled to return the loan amount.

Judgement

Trial court passed verdict by saying that the contract between Dharmodas and Bharmo Dutt was void because Dharmodas was minor at the time of execution of the mortgage and the contract with minor is void. So there was no contract take place. After trial court passed judgement When Bharmo Dutt was not satisfied with the judgement. He filed an appeal in Calcutta high court. After seen the trial court judgement HC dismissed the appeal of  Bharmo Dutt by saying that contract with minor is null and void in the eyes of law.  After dismissed the appeal by High Court, he sent a letter of appeal in the privy council. The privy council also dismissed the appeal of Bharmodutt by saying that there can not be any contract take place between the major and minor party. Dharmodas was not competent to make a contract because he was minor, That’s why Bharmo Dutt can does not seek for taking relief. 

The final decision passed by the council was that the contract with minor or infant person or party will be void from the beginning (Void ab Initio). Because minor and infant person is not able to understand the nature and manner of the contract in the eyes of law. That’s why minor was not competent to make any such contract or mortgage deed with any person or party. Such a contract will be void from the very beginning in the eyes of law and Dharmodas was not entitled to return the money that he takes during mortgage deed. 

Analysis

In the case of Mohori Bibee versus Dharmodas Ghose, we conclude that any agreement or deed between the minor and major or with the minor party is void ab initio. Making a contract with a minor is null and void in the eyes of law. Hence Dharmodas was not entitled to return the amount that was taken as a loan at the time of the mortgage. If any minor deal on the behalf of self without consulting his parents then the parents of minor will not be liable for the dealing of the minor. 

Post Views: 1,664

Related

Case Analysis Law of Contracts contractindianconstitutionindiancontractactlawlegalllbllbmania

Post navigation

Previous post
Next post

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Tweets by llbmania

Recent Posts

  • South Korea Emulates EU’s Model of Comprehensive AI Regulation
  • Access to Justice for Poor Prisoners – A Distant Reality!
  • Winzo Games Pvt Limited vs Google LLC [Case No. 42 of 2022, CCI]
  • Social Media and IP Protection in the Digital Landscape
  • Navigating the Constitutional Complexities of Section 166(3), Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 (MVA, 1988): Time-Barred Claims and condonation of delay

Archives

  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 2022
  • July 2022
  • June 2022
  • May 2022
  • April 2022
  • March 2022
  • February 2022
  • January 2022
  • December 2021
  • November 2021
  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
©2025 LL.B Mania | WordPress Theme by SuperbThemes