Mohoribibi vs Dharmodas Godse

Citation– Ilr (1903) 30 Cal 539 (Pc)

Judges: Lord Mcnaughton, Lord Davey, Lord Lindley, Sir Ford North, Sir Andrew Scoble, Sir Andrew Wilson, JJ.

Facts:

A minor i.e. Dharmodas Godse was a sole owner of an immovable property, whereas the mother of Dharmodas Ghose was authorized as his legal custodian by Calcutta High Court. Dharmodas Godse mortgaged his property in favour of the Defendant, Mr. Bhramo Das and accepted money in advance from the Defendant. Bhramo Dutta who was a money lender at that time and he secured a loan or 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 but the proportion or sum of loan that was actually provided was less than Rs. 20,000. The negotiator or representative of the defendant, who actually acted instead of on behalf of money lender has given money or sum to the plaintiff, who was a minor and he fully had knowledge about the incompetency of the plaintiff to perform or enter into contract and also that he was incompetent legally to mortgage his property which belonged to him.Thereafter, the minor filed a suit for cancellation of the mortgage. However, the Defendant pleaded that he is liable to get his money back as the contract is voidable under Section 64 of the Act.

Issues:

Was the contract voidable under Section 64 of the Indian Contract Act?
Whether the deed was void under section 2, 10[5], 11[6], of Indian Contract Act?

Judgement:

According to he verdict of Trial Court, such mortgage deed or contract that was commenced between the plaintiff and the defendant was void as it was accomplished by the person who was an infant at the time of execution of mortgage. When Brahmo Dutta was not satisfied with the verdict of Trial Court he filled an appeal in the Calcutta High Court. Calcutta High Court, upheld the verdict given by Trial Court and dismissed the appeal of Brahmo Dutta. Bramho Das subsequently appealed before the Privy Council and the following was held:

Any contract with a minor or infant is void/ void ab-initio (void from beginning).
Since minor was incompetent to make such mortgage hence the contact such made or commenced shall also be void and not valid in the eyes of law.
The minor i.e. Dahrmodas Gosh cannot be forced to give back the amount of money that was advanced to him, because he was not bound by the promise that was executed in a contract.

Analysis:

It can be concluded that any agreement or deed in which minor is party to it or is party to any such contact by any way, such deed or agreement shall be declared null and void as the same cannot be as agreement in the eyes of law. Any agreement with an infant cannot be administered against them. In cases minors’ parents or custodians shall not be liable for the transactions conducted by the minor when the same is carried out without their consent or knowledge, and hence they will not be liable to return the amount taken by the minor out of the moral obligations. But parents and guardians will be liable to repay back the amount when minor or an infant acted with the consent of the his/her parents or his/ her custodians.