Mohoribibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) 30 IA 114
Citation: Privy Council (1903) 30 IA 114 : ILR 30 Cal 539
Landmark Privy Council ruling establishing that an agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio under Section 11, and no restitution can be claimed.
Material Facts
Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, mortgaged his immovable property in favour of Brahmo Dutt, a moneylender, to secure a loan of ₹20,000. At the time of the transaction, the moneylender's attorney knew that Dharmodas was a minor. Later, Dharmodas through his mother brought an action for declaration that the mortgage was void and cancelled. The moneylender contended that the minor had fraudulently represented his age and claimed refund of the advanced money under Section 64/65 of the Indian Contract Act.
Legal Issue Raised
Whether a mortgage executed by a minor is void or voidable, and whether the moneylender is entitled to restitution of money advanced under Section 64 or 65.
Judgment & Ratio Decidendi
The Privy Council, speaking through Sir Lord Davey, held that Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act makes it imperative that an agreement made by an incompetent person (such as a minor) is void ab initio (void from the very beginning). Therefore, the mortgage was entirely null and void. Furthermore, Section 64 and Section 65 apply only to agreements between competent parties or voidable contracts that are later rescinded; neither section applies to agreements that were void ab initio.
ICAI / ICSI Model Answer Blueprint
1. APPLICABLE PROVISIONS: Under Section 10 and Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, every person is competent to contract who is of the age of majority according to the law to which he is subject, of sound mind, and not disqualified by law. 2. LEGAL PRINCIPLE (RATIO DECIDENDI): As affirmed in the locus classicus Mohoribibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903), a contract entered into by a minor is absolute void ab initio. The rule of estoppel (Section 115, Evidence Act) does not apply against a minor. There can be no ratification of an agreement upon attaining majority because a void transaction cannot be validated retrospectively. 3. RESTITUTION DOCTRINE: Under the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (Section 33), if a minor has received any benefit, the Court may require him to restore the benefit only if the goods/property are traceable in his hands and justice so requires, but money cannot be ordered to be refunded if spent.