Vivekparulekar: Put up the stub v1...

2026-01-31T20:12:17Z

Put up the stub v1...

New page

{{Short description|1902 Indian contract law case}}
{{Infobox court case
|name = Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose
|court = [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]]
|image =
|imagesize = 120
|imagelink =
|imagealt =
|caption =
|full name = Mohori Bibee and another v Dharmodas Ghose
|date decided = 4 March 1902
|citations = [https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1903/1903_12.html [1903<nowiki>]</nowiki> UKPC 12], (1903) LR 30 IA 114
|transcripts =
|judges = [[Edward Macnaghten, Baron Macnaghten|Lord Macnaghten]] [[Horace Davey, Baron Davey|Lord Davey]] [[Nathaniel Lindley, Baron Lindley|Lord Lindley]] [[Ford North|Sir Ford North]] [[Andrew Scoble|Sir Andrew Scoble]] [[Arthur Wilson (judge)|Sir Arthur Wilson]]
|number of judges = 6
|decision by = [[Ford North|Sir Ford North]]
|prior actions =
|appealed from = [[Calcutta High Court|High Court of Judicature at Fort William]]
|opinions =
|keywords = Contract law, minority, mortgage
|italic title = Yes
}}

'''''Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose''''', [1903] UKPC 12, is a major [[India]]n [[Indian Contract Act, 1872|contract law]] case decided by the [[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]]. The case held that a contract entered into by a [[Minor (law)|minor]] is totally void.<ref name=advice>{{cite court |litigants=Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose |vol=[1903] |reporter=UKPC |opinion=12 |court=[[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] |date=4 March 1903 |url=https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1903/1903_12.html |access-date=27 June 2022 |quote= |postscript= }}</ref>

==Facts==
Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, [[Mortgage loan|mortgaged]] his property in favour of a moneylender, Brahmo Dutt, against the loan of Rs 20,000. Dutt's attorney, acting on behalf of him, was aware of Ghose's minority.{as throughout the transaction brahmo dutt was absent from calcutta}. Ghose, through his mother and guardian, sued Dutt claiming that the mortgage was void due to his minority. The Court of First Instance held in Ghose's favour, and on appeal, the [[Calcutta High Court|High Court of Judicature at Fort William]] upheld that decision. Before the appeal to the Privy Council, Dutt died and the proceeding was continued by his heirs.<ref name=advice></ref>

==Privy Council==
Section 11 of the [[Indian Contract Act, 1872|Contract Act, 1872]] provides that for a person to have contracting capacity, they had to be of the age of majority, of sound mind, and not otherwise disqualified from contracting by law. However, this does not provide whether a minor's contract is [[Void contract|void]] or [[Voidable contract|voidable]] at the minor's option.<ref name=advice></ref>

Confirming the original and appellate decisions, the Privy Council held that Ghose's contract was "''absolutely void''" from the beginning. At the same time, Ghose could not be compelled to return the loan money received under mortgage as he was not bound by the promise made at the time of contracting.<ref name=advice></ref>

==Significance==
The decision is good precedent in Indian contract law, and was re-affirmed by the [[Supreme Court of India|Supreme Court]] in its 2014 decision in ''Mathai Mathai v Joseph Mary''.<ref>{{cite court |litigants=Mathai Mathai v Joseph Mary |vol=2014 |reporter=INSC |opinion=376 |court=[[Supreme Court of India]] |date=25 April 2014 |url=http://www.liiofindia.org/in/cases/cen/INSC/2014/376.html |access-date=27 June 2022 |quote= |postscript= }}</ref>

The holding that a minor's contract is "''absolutely void''" could lead to results which were against the minor's interests. Thus, [[High Courts of India|High Courts]] interpreted the decision to allow [[Specific performance|enforcement]] of contracts made for their benefit and made by their [[Legal guardian|guardians]], within their competence as their guardians.<ref name=SKS>{{cite court |litigants=Sri Kakulam Subrahmanyam v Kurra Subba Rao |vol=1948 |reporter=UKPC |opinion=16 |court=[[Judicial Committee of the Privy Council]] |date=26 February 1948 |url=https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/1948/1948_16.html |access-date=28 June 2022 |quote= |postscript= }}</ref> The Privy Council itself upheld this interpretation in 1948.<ref name=SKS></ref>

==References==
{{Reflist}}

[[Category:Judicial Committee of the Privy Council cases]]
[[Category:1903 in India]]
[[Category:1903 in case law]]

Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose - Revision history

Vivekparulekar: Put up the stub v1...