Published on: 22nd October 2025
Authored by: Shubhashree Panda
SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW, BHUBANESWAR
INTRODUCTION
League is the Mohiribibee V. Dharmodas Ghose is a fundamental decision that created the fundamental principle that a contract with a minor is empty to say that it is invalid from the beginning. This judgment is the first interpretation to authorize the article 11th act of Indian Contr., 1872, which determines which is competent for contract. The decision had a steady impact on the Indian commitment practice, especially to protect legal interests of the minors[1].
THE DETAILS OF THE MATTER
Title of Case: Bibee V. Dharmodas Ghose
Citation: (1903) 30 Cal 539 (PC)
Court: Committee Privy Council Thursday (London)
Bench: Mr. Mcnaghen, Lord Lindley, Mr Tindley, Sir Tost North, Sir Andrew Skile and Sir Arthur Wilson
Date of Judgment: 4 March 1903
Claimant: Bibee Moori (mother and legal guardian of Dharmodas Ghose)
Respondent: Ghose Dharmdas
THE CONTEXT AND FACTS OF THE MATTER
Dharmodas Ghose, the respondent, had been a minor underneath the age of the major, as ea the majorly defined in the Indian law. Failed the sole owner of buildings and was under the legal monitoring of his mother, major to the nick. Even if a minor, Dharmodas have made an act of hypothecates in favour of a borrower, Brahmaness, for a loan of 20,000. The length of the borrower, to the dark Christmas, he acted in his name to advance the loan. Especially, at the time of this transaction:
Only 8,000 ₹ were really past by Dharmodas. Before the mortgage was executed, Mohor had a legal works to ample to the attention that son was a minor, and any transaction with him, it would be legally it would be legally. Despite this previous knowledge, the mortgage act has been performed. Next, Dharmodas, through his teacher, introduced to a complaint that the minority, contract machine was zero below the Indian contract of 1872[2].
THE ORIGINAL DISPOSITION INCLUDED
Article 11 – Dating Indian Cistrons, 1872:
“Each person is competent for contract what is the majority age under the law to which presented … and here to a strong spirit, and was not disappointed by contraction from a law to whom is submitted. “”
So, a minor is not competent to finish a valid contract.
THE LEGAL PROBLEMS RAISED
- Is a contract conclude from an absolutely zero or only empty minor?
- Can be a minor to retrieve money or perks taken on the basis of vacuum agreement (worth the doctrine return)?
- Is there a borrower medicine if the minor distorts its age?
- What is the fair relief status when a contract is reported voted for minority?
ARGUMENTS FROM BOTH PARTIES
Claimant arguments:
The contract was zero since the beginning because Dharmodas was juvenile at the time of execution. Under the 11th law enforcement item on the Indian contracts, the minor may not finish legally finish a contract; So, the mortgage was zero and not on the road. The other side had a preliminary opinion of the minority and so can’t search for ignorance. Cannot return or refund because there was no valid contract in the first place. The respondent arguments (Brahmo Dept) Representative):
However, was Dharmodas was a minor, it distorts to be out. Consequently, must be prevented from refusing the validity of the contract. The court must apply the doctrine back, which means that advanced money should be given to the minor to avoid teaching. Although the contract was zero, actions require the borrowed money refund.
COURT DECISION (PRIVATE ADVICE)
The Put Board of the Prester has rejected the use of money borrower and confirms the judgment of Calcutta court. The mortgage has been declared invalid and implanted.
The Trial Highlights:
A finished contract from a minor is empty ab (which is, invalid from the beginning), and not just cancelled in the small option. They join contracts, action ordinary contracts of law, recognize without exceptions allowing you to be young to be obliged by the contract. Equal upon or a champion lawyer is not applied when the base of the transaction is zero. Estelle doctrine is not applied to young people. A minor cannot be responsible even if it was represented falsely.
DECIDING REPORT (REASONING FOR DECISION)
Decided advising decision can be resumed as:
Contracting inability: a minor does not have the contracting ability under item 11 law on the Indian contract of 1872. So, any agreement with a minor is an invalid in the law. Void Saadian: The mortgage has been reported varia, not only ring, because the minor could never have the legal the contract in the first place. No return: The return of return is only applicable when agreement is legally valid. In case of youth, the contract will never exist legally. So, there is no doubt about the return of advanced money. The useful of appeal has not applied: The beginning of the mature extracting, that will prevent someone to return to their word, do not apply to the minors their legal solitary. Public policies: the law has aim to protect young people to exploit and promote public well. Allow the borrowers to follow the minors by defeating this purpose[3].
THE IMPACT AND THE MEANING OF JUDGMENT
Decision in Mohiribibee V. Dharmodas Ghose is a historic decision in the law about Indian contracts. Has clarified some essential aspects of juice contracts:
I am Clarify the legal doctrine
The private advice is concluded that contracts are absolutely zero, so concluding the previous confusion to the Indian courts to find out that these contracts were zero or simply.
The judgment is of defensive nature, recognize minors’ sensitivity in financial and legal matters. Guarantees that non -parables respectable for objections that do not legal bought for punter[4].
LIMIT FOR LOANS AND BUSINESS
This actual case makes you as a warning for the borrowers, emphasize the necessity of the reasonable before entering a transaction. Once is known or known that a party is small, the contract is not applicable. d. Prevent poor use of the right doctrines
Reaffirms that the equality cannot replace legal provisions – if the law declares a zero contractor, no fair repairs (such as estoppel) can revive.
COMMENT
Although the Corporately has been carried over the righteous clarity and the preservation of the primer, it has also criticized for a difficult borrower for innocent lender. The critics discuss jewels may distort their age, receives services, then escape the responsibility under the legal disability shield. However, this concern is balanced for the fact that law must prove protection against juvenile socks. The law is assuming the minors are not able to understand the nature and consequences of a legal agreement, and, consequently, is not “free” in the herd of the legal sense[5].
CONCLUSION
Decision in Mohiribibee v. Dharmodas cases remains one of the most mentioned cases and is discussed in the law about Indian contracts. Has solved the law in the minority and contractual responsibility, concluded that:
A contract with a minor is absolutely zero. No return or exceptions applies to such contract. The law favours the protection of young people even at the cost of the missing for the other side. This case had a deep and sustainable impact in the academic study and the practical interpretation of the law to contracts in India. This is a fundamental judgment for the law professionals, judges, students and the first of political decays.
[1] https://www.lexisnexis.com
[2] https://www.lawbhoomi.com.
[3] https://www.iblogpleaders.com.
