Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose
Mohori Bibee vs Dharmodas Ghose (1903) is one of the most significant cases in Indian contract law. The case dealt with the issue of the capacity of minors to contract, specifically regarding the enforceability of contracts entered into by minors.
Case Overview:
In this case, Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, entered into a contract with Mohori Bibee (a moneylender). Ghose mortgaged his property to her in exchange for a loan. Later, Ghose, upon realizing that he was a minor at the time of the contract, sought to set aside the contract, claiming it was not valid because minors cannot legally contract.
The moneylender (Mohori Bibee) sued to enforce the contract, but the court had to decide whether the contract was valid or void, given that one of the parties was a minor.
Legal Issue:
The key issue in this case was whether a contract entered into by a minor is void or voidable. Specifically, it raised the question of whether a minor’s contract could be enforced against them, and whether they could be compelled to fulfill obligations under such a contract.
Court's Decision:
The Privy Council (which was the highest appellate body in British India) delivered a landmark judgment. The court held that:
Contract by Minor is Void: A contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio (void from the beginning). The contract cannot be enforced against the minor under any circumstances, regardless of whether the minor tries to ratify it once they reach the age of majority.
Legal Capacity: The decision confirmed that minors do not have the legal capacity to contract, as they are presumed to lack the necessary understanding of the consequences of such agreements.
No Ratification After Majority: Even after a minor reaches the age of majority, they cannot ratify or validate a contract made during their minority. The contract remains void because it was void from the start.
Key Legal Principles Established:
Contracts with Minors are Void: A minor cannot be bound by a contract. Therefore, any contract entered into by a minor is void and unenforceable.
No Ratification after Reaching Majority: Once a minor becomes of age (i.e., reaches the age of majority), they cannot later ratify a contract they had made when they were a minor.
Protection of Minors: The case emphasizes the protection of minors from exploitation through contracts, recognizing that they may not fully understand the implications of legal agreements.
Impact of the Case:
This ruling became a cornerstone in the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which explicitly states that minors cannot contract. The judgment has had a lasting influence on how contracts involving minors are treated in India.
Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act: This section outlines that only persons who are of legal age and of sound mind can enter into binding contracts. The case reaffirms this principle by stating that a minor does not have the legal capacity to contract.
Legal Precedent: The Mohori Bibee case remains a key case often cited when dealing with the issue of contracts involving minors in Indian law.
Key Takeaways:
Void Contract: A minor's contract is void ab initio (from the beginning), meaning it is invalid from the outset.
No Enforcement: A minor cannot be compelled to fulfill a contract they entered into during their minority.
No Ratification: After reaching the age of majority, a minor cannot ratify or make valid a contract they entered into while a minor.
Legal Protection for Minors: The ruling provides legal protection to minors, acknowledging that they may lack the mental capacity to understand the legal consequences of their actions.
RELATED Blog
0 comments