Case Mohori

Bibee Vs. Dharmoda

s Ghose

BY:M.V.KARTHIK

Gitam School Of International

Business

INTRODUCTION OF THE CASE:

Appellant(Plaintiff) : Mohori Bibee Advocate for Appellant : WatkinsRespondent (Defendant): Dharmodas GhoseAdvocate for Respondent : W.W. BoxJudge : Lord Macnaghten; Lord Davey; Lord Lindley; Sir Ford North; Sir Andrew Scoble; Sir Andrew Wilson, JJ.Court : KolkataReported in : (1903)30IndianAppeals114Decided On : Mar-04-1903Acts : Indian Evidence Act, 1877 - Section 115; Indian Contract Act - Sections 41, 19, 64, 65

• The Dharmodas Ghose lent the MINOR the sum of 20,000 rupees at 12% interest and secured the loan by way of mortgage executed by the MINOR in favour of the Dharmodas Ghose.

• Later the mother of the children claim that the mortgage was void for lack of capacity.

CASE:

Capacity to Contract

Essentials of a Valid Contract

•Section 10: The parties involved in the contract should be competent to make the contract.•Section 11: Every person is competent to contract who is of age of majority according to the law to which he/she is subjected to.

Disqualifications to compete for a contract

• A person who has not attained the age of majority according to the law.• A person who is of unsound mind.• A person who has been disqualified from contracting by some law.

The position of a minor

• The council held the contract by the minor as void• The minor has no capacity to contract hence the mortgage was not valid• He cannot be compelled to repay the amount advanced to him.• As he is not bound by the promise made by him under the contract.

JUDGMENT

Law of estoppel

• A legal tool used when someone contradict a previous agreement.• Low of estoppel is not applicable to minor• The purpose of the policy is to protect the minor.