The case Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose is related to the minor agreement according to this any agreement with the minor is void ab-initio which means void from the beginning.
Any agreement with the minor is not valid.
minor refers to a person who has not attained the age of maturity. which means less than 18 years of age come under the category of a minor.
- Dharmodas Ghose was the respondent in this case . he is a minor
- Brahmo Dutta who was a money lender in this case
- Kedar Nath acted as the attorney of Brahmo Dutta
FACTS OF THE CASE
Dharmodas Ghose who is a minor (not attain the age of 18 years) The Dharmodas Ghose was the only owner of his immovable property. the mother of Dharmodas Ghose was the legal custodian of the Calcutta high court.
the Dharmodas Ghose give his property on a mortgage secured of rupees 20000 with the interest rate of 12% per year.
now the Brahmo Dutta who was a money lender at the time secured a loan of rupees 20000, and the business management is controlled by the Kedar Nath and the Kedar Nath is acted as an attorney of the Brahmo Dutta.
At the time of this deed, the mother of Dharmodas Ghose sent the notification and tell about the age of Dharmodas Ghose to the Brahmo Dutta. But the amount which is decided at the time of deed is rupees 20000 but the actual amount received by him is less than the deed amount. (less than 20000)
The representative of the defendant who is acting as a money launder has full knowledge about his minority and the defendant also knows that any agreement with the minor is void beside this he agreed with the defendant.
ON 10 September 1895 Dharmodas Ghose and his mother take legal action against Brahmo Dutta who was a money launder by saying that the mortgage deed is void because at the time of mortgage he is a minor so the deed is void or improper as a result of which such contract should be revoked.
When the petition and the process were claimed the money launder Brahmo Dutta died and further the appeal was litigated by his executors.
ISSUES BEFORE THE COURT
- *Whether the contract is void or not.
- *Whether the defendant was liable to pay back the deed amount.
- *Whether the deed was void under sections 2, 10, and 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
ARGUMENT FROM THE PLAINTIFF
The plaintiff was a minor at the time of the mortgage deed. The defendant Brahmo Dutta does not give any response to his mother’s notification which she is sent at the time of a mortgage deed means he knows about his minority and the plaintiff made a fraudulent declaration about his age so he does not entitle to any relief.
The respondent is stopped by SECTION 115 of The Indian Evidence Act 1872 for claiming that he is a minor at the time of the deed. the respondent must repay the amount advanced according to SECTION 64 and 38 of the Indian Contract Act (1872) and Section 41 of the specific relief act (1877).
ARGUMENT OF THE RESPONDENT
The respondent and his agent Kedar Nath knew his minority at the time of the contract. Hence the contract under the minor is void ab-into.
According to the verdict of the trial court, the mortgage deed or contract is void because at the time of contract one party is minor and according to THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872 the agreement with the minor is void ab-initio (void from the beginning )
When Brahmo Dutta was not satisfied with the decision of the trial court he appeal to the Calcutta high court.
The Calcutta high court is agreed with the decision of the trial court, hence the dismiss the appeal of the Brahmo Dutta.
Then after he went to the privy council for appeal the privy council also dismiss the appeal of the Brahmo Dutta and said that there is no contract between the minor and the major person.
The final decision that was passed by the council was any contract with the minor that is void ab-initio that is void from the beginning.