Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose, [1903] UKPC 12 | Situation of minors in contract
Mohori Bibee v Dharmodas Ghose, [1903] UKPC 12
The case held that a contract entered into by a minor is totally void
Case facts
- Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, mortgaged his property in favour of a moneylender, Brahmo Dutt, against a 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 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.
Question to be addressed in the case:
Whether the parties were competent to enter into a contract which they made?
Can the minor be compelled to repay the money by law?
Whether the parties were competent to enter into a contract which they made?
Can the minor be compelled to repay the money by law?
Is the contract void ab initio or voidable?
Disclaimer: The posts are meant for educational and learning purposes only for anyone interested in learning and discussing law. Emphasis is on making sure the most important learnings and takeaways of the case and legal implications are presented accordingly