Mohori bibee v dharmodas ghose

How To Submit Your Article: For Further Details Contact: Judicial corruption has been document in India and throughout the world. A United Nations report states:

Mohori bibee v dharmodas ghose

In India, an agreement or a contract with a minor a person who is below the age of 18 yrs. According to courts opinion, any person who is below 18 yrs of age or who has not completed the age of 18 yrs.

Mohori bibee v dharmodas ghose

This case has basically provided us with the knowledge that, since minors are legally incompetent to give their assent so they need to deserve or be provide with the protection in their dealings with the other major persons. After this caseany sought of contact or agreement with the minor was void from beginning.

Such contracts are "void ab-initio[2]". Section 10[3]of Indian Contact Act, provides for what agreements are contracts? He was a minor i. Brahmo Dutta, he was a minor and he secured this mortgage deed for Rs.

Since minor was incompetent to make such mortgage hence the contact such made or commenced shall also be void and id not valid in the eyes of law. Dahrmodas Gosh cannot be forced to give back the amount of money that was advanced to him, because he was not bound by the promise that was executed in a contract.

It is a law that was enacted to introduce various laws relating to the "law of majority". Prior to the enactment of this act, there was no surety or certainty about the age limit of attaining majority.

Case Analysis-Mohori Bibee v/s dharmodas Ghose

This act has basically fixed the age limit of attaining majority and i. It states that, every single person who is domiciled in India can only achieve the age of majority only after the completion of age of 18 years, and not before that at any cost.

There comes an exception in the case were any particular personal law provides the age of attaining majority only and if not provided than, else any person domiciled by India shall only achieve majority after the completion of 18 years of age. In the case were the guardian or a custodian is appointed by any court of justice for a minor in case of a person or his property or for both before the age of 18 years, then in such a case the age of majority would be after attaining the age of 21 years instead of attaining 18 years of age.

All contacts with the minors will be void ab-initio. Majority Act, outlined the definition of a minor, according to such act, any person who is below the age of 18 years or has not completed the age of 18 years shall not be competent to create or enter into any sought of contact or agreement.

This perception is correct because minor or infant comes in the category of such people who cannot give there free consent along with the reason that they are not in a situation where they can think in a manner in which a prudent or an ordinary person could do it.

An agreement is a deal where free an equal consent of all parties are given but in case of a minor there consent can be dominated by major ones as a result of whichit leads to the violation of one of the condition to form a contract, i.

The court also through its verdict has propounded that, a contact with an infant shall be declared null and void it means that it is neither valid nor voidable. According to me, minors contract shall be avoided and stopped because it sometimes lead to the harmful social, economic and legal effects on the lives and conditions of the minors.

Any such person who commits such offence shall be strictly punished by court of law, either through imprisonment or with a fine or with both according to the ambit of the offence committed by the major person.

Any agreement with an infant cannot be administered against them. In cases minors parents or custodians shall not be liable for the dealings done by the minor without their consent or knowledge, and hence they will not be liable to return the amount back taken by the minor out of the moral obligations.

The party rescinding a voidable contract if has received any benefit thereunder from the another party to such contract, restore such benefitto the person from whom it was received.By Palak Verma, Amity University.

Mohori Bibee V/S Dharmodas Ghose[1] is a case that covers the ambit of minors agreement. This case basically deals with a minor's contract or a contract with a minor. This case basically deals with a minor's contract or a contract with a minor. Judgment: SIR FORD NORTH, J. On July 20, , the respondent, Dhurmodas Ghose, executed a mortgage in favour of Brahmo Dutt, a money-lender carrying on business at Calcutta and elsewhere, to secure the repayment of Rs. 20, at 12 per cent. interest on some houses belonging to the respondent. Dharmodas Ghose CASE (). BRIEF FACTS- Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, entered into a contract for borrowing a sum of Rs. 20, out of which the lender paid the minor a sum of Rs. 8,The minor executed mortgage of property in favour of the lender. Subsequently, the minor sued for setting aside the mortgage.

Editor’s Note: Notes on the Doctrine of Election as laid down in Section 35 of the Transfer of Property Act. SECTION ELECTION WHEN NECESSARY.

Mohori bibee v dharmodas ghose

Where a person professes to transfer property which he has no right to transfer, and as part of the same transaction confers any benefit on the owner of the property, such owner must elect either to confirm .

MOHIRI BIVEE VS DHARMODAS GHOSH - Indian Kanoon Minors are not eligible to enter into contract u/s 11 of the contract act. Hence any contract with a minor. In this submission, the author has discussed in detail the Mohori Bibee case wherein, the Privy Council declared that a minor’s contract is void and not me.

Latest Articles Listed Below

Mohori Bibee & Anothr v Dharmodas Ghose. g.r. No. April 20, Limson vs CA Mohori Bibee v.

Mohori Bibee and Another Vs Dharmodas Ghose - Citation - Court Judgment | LegalCrystal

Dharmodas Ghose October 22, by kanchi — Leave a Comment Mohori Bibi Leave a Reply Your email address will not be published.

Required fields are marked * Name * Email *5/5(1). MOHORI BIBEE VS DRAHMOS GHOSH About the Case • The Dharmodas Ghose lent the MINOR the sum of 20, rupees at 12% interest and secured the loan by way of mortgage executed by the MINOR in favor of the Dharmodas Ghose.

• Later the mother of the children claim that the mortgage was void for lack of capacity. Mohori bibee v . Find latest articles on law written by attorneys lawyers advocates and law students and scholars discussing legal aspects related to industries, businesses and individuals on.