Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903) - Case Analysis

Introduction of Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose

The case of Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903) is an important decision which held the principle that contracts entered into by minors are void ab initio. In this case Dharmodas Ghose who was a minor had entered into a mortgage agreement with Brahmo Dutta, despite being legally incapable of contracting. The case dealt with important issues regarding -

📚 Exclusive Free Judiciary Notes For Law Aspirants

Subjects	PDF Link
Download the Free Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita PDF Created by legal experts	Download Link
Grab the Free Law of Contract PDF used by Judiciary Aspirants	Download Link
Get your hands on the most trusted Free Law of Torts PDF	Download Link
Crack concepts with this Free Jurisprudence PDF crafted by top mentors	Download Link

• the validity of agreements involving minors
• the applicability of estoppel
• the consequences of such contracts under Indian contract law

The Privy Council in its decision on 4th March, 1903 held that agreements with minors are void ab initio i.e. void from the beginning.

Historical Context and Facts of Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose

The case at hand is a landmark judgement which addresses the legal status of agreements entered by minors. The following are the brief facts of the case-

Background and Parties involved in the Case

In this case Dharmodas Ghose, a minor under the age of 18 owned a piece of land managed by his mother. Legally, he was not permitted to enter into binding contracts. Despite this, he used his land as collateral to secure a loan from Brahmo Dutta who was a moneylender. He agreed to borrow Rs. 20,000 at an interest rate of 20% per annum. The agent of Brahmo Dutta, Kedar Nath handled the transaction on behalf of Brahmo Dutta.

Notification of Minority Status

The mother of Dharmodas informed Brahmo Dutta before the finalization of the mortgage agreement that -

• her son was a minor 
• legally incapable of contracting regarding his property

Kedar Nath, who was aware of the age of Dharmodas, proceeded with the transaction.

Legal Action to invalidate the Mortgage

Dharmodas Ghose and his mother on 10th September, 1895 filed a lawsuit against Brahmo Dutta to invalidate the mortgage. By the time of the lawsuit, Brahmo Dutta had passed away and his representatives, including Mohori Bibee, proceeded with the appeal.

Arguments of the Appellant

The Appellant Mohori Bibee contended that Dharmodas had misrepresented his age at the time of the agreement and implied he was of legal age. The Appellant argued that this alleged misrepresentation by Dharmodas should not be entitled to relief. He also asserted that the Respondent should be estopped from denying his age as represented under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Appellant also referred to Section 38, Section 41 and Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 along with Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (Now Section 33 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963) and contended that Dharmodas should be held responsible for the repayment of the loan under the provisions applicable to voidable contracts.

Arguments of the Respondent

The Plaintiff contended that the mortgage contract was void from the beginning due to minority status of the Dharmodas which prevented him from making legally binding agreements.

Issue addressed in Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose

The main question which was addressed in Mohori Bibee case were -

• Whether the mortgage deed was void under Section 2, Section 10, Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872?
• Whether the defendant was obligated to return the loan amount he had received under the deed or mortgage or not?

Legal Provisions involved in Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose

In Mohori Bibee case Section 2(h), Section 10, Section 11, Section 64 and Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 along with Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 played a significant roles. The following are the legal analysis of these provisions -

Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

According to Section 2(h) of the Act an agreement enforceable by law is a contract.

Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

Section 10 provides that all agreements are contracts if they are made by the -

• free consent of parties 
• competent to contract
• for a lawful consideration
• with a lawful object
• not hereby expressly declared to be void

Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

Section 11 deals with who are competent to contract. It states that every person is competent to contract -

• who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject
• who is of sound mind
• is not disqualified from contracting by any law to which he is subject

Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

Section 64 deals with the consequences of rescission of voidable contract. It states that when a person at whose option a contract is voidable rescinds it, the other party thereto need not perform any promise therein contained in which he is promisor. The party rescinding a voidable contract shall, if he has received any benefit thereunder from another party to such contract, restore such benefit, so far as may be, to the person from whom it was received.

Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872

Section 65 deals with the obligation of a person who has received advantage under void agreement, or contract that becomes void. It provides that When an agreement is discovered to be void, or when a contract becomes void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he received it.

Section 3 of the Indian Majority Act, 1875

The Indian Majority Act, 1875, establishes the age of majority. According to Section 3 a person is considered a major who has completed the age of 18 years.

Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

Section 115 of the Act deals with Estoppel. It states that when one person has by his -

• declaration
• act or 
• omission

intentionally caused or permitted another person to believe a thing to be true and to act upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself and such person or his representative, to deny the truth of that thing.

Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963

Section 41 (Now Section 33) of the Act deals with the power to require benefit to be restored or compensation to be made when instrument is cancelled or is successfully resisted as being void or voidable. It states that-

1. On adjudging the cancellation of an instrument, the court may require the party to whom such relief is granted, to restore, so far as may be any benefit which he may have received from the other party and to make any compensation to him which justice may require. 
2. Where a defendant successfully resists any suit on the ground-

(a) that the instrument sought to be enforced against him in the suit is voidable, the court may if the defendant has received any benefit under the instrument from the other party, require him to restore, so far as may be, such benefit to that party or to make compensation for it

(b) that the agreement sought to be enforced against him in the suit is void by reason of his not having been competent to contract under section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, the court may, if the defendant has received any benefit under the agreement from the other party, require him to restore, so far as may be, such benefit to that party, to the extent to which he or his estate has benefited thereby.

The Privy Council after examining the facts and circumstances in Mohori Bibee case concluded that an agreement with a minor is void ab initio which means it is void from the beginning. The Court observed the following -

Doctrine of Estoppel

The Court held that the doctrine of estoppel was not applicable in this case because Kedar Nath, who was the representative of Brahmo Dutta, was aware of the minority status of Dharmodas Ghose.

Section 64 and Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act

The Privy Council observed that Section 64 and Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act were not applicable since no valid agreement existed. The contract must involve legally competent parties for the applicability of Section 64 and Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act.

Refund under the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (now Section 33 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963)

Section 41 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 (now Section 33 of the 1963 Act) provides that a Court may require compensation from a party granted cancellation of an instrument. In case if a party requests the cancellation of an agreement along with the return of benefits then in such a case they are not entitled to a refund under the Act. Thus, the Appellant in Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose are not entitled to claim a refund.

Equitable Doctrine of Restitution for Minors

The Courts have established an equitable principle of restitution for minor agreements. This doctrine allows the return of tangible goods or assets received by a minor if they are traceable, benefiting the bona fide party. The principle was reinforced in Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose that minor agreements are void ab initio with no legal standing from the beginning.

Conclusion

In Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903) the Privy Council held that agreements with minors are void ab initio i.e. void from the beginning. The Court ruled that the doctrine of estoppel was not applicable due to the agent’s knowledge of his minority. It also observed that Section 64 and Section 65 of the Indian Contract Act were inapplicable since the parties lacked competency. This case established a precedent that minors cannot be held liable in contracts.