Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose
An agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio, and cannot be enforced against him or ratified by him on attaining majority.
Citation
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose
(1903) ILR 30 Cal 539 (PC)
- Court
- Privy Council
- Statute
- Indian Contract Act, 1872 — capacity to contract
Facts, issue and held
Facts
Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, executed a mortgage of his property in favour of Brahmo Dutt, a moneylender, to secure a loan. The moneylender's attorney, who acted for him in the transaction, had been informed of and was aware of the fact that Dharmodas was a minor. Dharmodas, through his mother as next friend, sued to have the mortgage declared void and set aside. The moneylender contended that the minor had misrepresented his age, that he should be estopped from pleading minority, and that if the mortgage were set aside he should be ordered to repay the money advanced.
Issue
Whether an agreement by a minor is void or merely voidable, and whether the minor could be compelled to repay the money advanced on the security of the mortgage being set aside.
Held
The Privy Council held that an agreement by a minor is void ab initio and not merely voidable. The mortgage was accordingly set aside. The minor could not be estopped from pleading minority where the other party knew of it, and the statutory provisions permitting restoration of benefit on the rescission of a contract had no application, because those provisions presuppose a contract and here there had never been one. The moneylender could not recover the sum advanced.
- Capacity to contract is a precondition of a valid agreement; an agreement with a person incompetent to contract is void from the beginning.
- Because no contract ever came into existence, the provisions on restoration of benefit under a rescinded or void contract between competent parties did not apply.
- Estoppel could not be invoked against the minor where the other party's agent knew the true position.
- Protection of minors is a matter of policy, and allowing indirect enforcement through restitution would defeat that protection.
Ratio decidendi
Ratio decidendi
An agreement by a minor is void ab initio; it cannot be enforced against him, he cannot be estopped from setting up his minority, and he cannot be compelled to restore the benefit received under it in these circumstances.
Why it matters
The leading Indian authority on the capacity of minors to contract, and the foundation of every subsequent rule about minors' agreements — ratification, estoppel, restitution and liability for necessaries.
Current standing
The principle remains good law. It is subject to well-recognised qualifications: a minor's estate remains liable for necessaries supplied to him, a minor may be a beneficiary under a contract, and a minor may be admitted to the benefits of a partnership with the consent of all partners.
Using it in an answer
In Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) ILR 30 Cal 539, the Privy Council held that an agreement entered into by a minor is void ab initio, that the minor cannot be estopped from pleading his minority, and that he cannot be compelled to restore the benefit received.
In the present case the party was a minor at the date of the agreement, and the agreement is therefore void from the outset rather than voidable at his option.
It follows that the agreement cannot be enforced against him, and that any purported ratification after he attains majority is ineffective, since there was never an agreement capable of being ratified.
In the exam
The authority for every question on minors' agreements. Examiners commonly test three follow-on points — that ratification on majority is impossible, that estoppel does not apply, and that the minor's estate is nonetheless liable for necessaries. Be ready to state all three.
Related cases
Have questions?
Find answers.
Still unsure about something? We're happy to help you figure it out.
Talk to usCan a minor ratify an agreement after attaining majority?
No. Because the agreement was void from the outset, there is nothing capable of ratification. If the person wishes to be bound after attaining majority, a fresh agreement supported by fresh consideration is required.
Is a minor ever liable under an agreement?
The minor is not personally liable, but his estate is liable for necessaries supplied to him suited to his condition in life. A minor may also be a beneficiary under a contract, and may be admitted to the benefits of a partnership with the consent of all the partners.
Please note
These summaries are prepared for CA exam preparation and are not legal advice. Case law develops — a decision may be distinguished, read down or superseded by later judgments or by legislative amendment. Verify the current position against ICAI's study material for your attempt and against the reported judgment before relying on any principle stated here.
You can recite Mohori Bibee. Can you apply it to new facts?
Generate practical case-based questions on this principle, attempt them under time, and get your answer evaluated for structure, citation and application.
Start practising free- Free to start
- Answer evaluation
- All 3 CA levels