MOHIRI BIVEE VS DHARMODAS GHOSH – Indian Kanoon
Case Name – MOHIRI BIVEE VS DHARMODAS GHOSH
Citation: 30 C;539; 7 C.W.N; 541;5 Bom, L.R. 421
This is one of those cases which throws light on the requirements to make a valid contract. Minor agreement is void ab initio is emphasized here.
Facts of the case:
- Bhramo dutt was a money lender in Calcutta. One minor Dharmo Dass entered into a contract with.
- He took Rs 20,000 from him and mortgaged his house in security against it.
- Since Bhramo dutt was not there, the transaction was done by his attorney,Kedar Nath.
- Dharmo Dass’s mother was the guardian at that time of the property under the order of court.
- Dharmo Dass returned only Rs. 8000 and refused to return the same.
- In 1895 mother of Dharmo Dass and a next friend filed case stating that any contract with minor is void ab initio and hence not liable to pay the money.
- The lower court granted relief to plantiff
- Appeal was made in Calcutta High court.
Issues: what is the nature of minor’s agreement?
- Minors are not eligible to enter into contract u/s 11 of the contract act. Hence any contract with a minor is void ab initio.
- All the requirements u/s 11 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 has to be fulfilled in order to constitute a valid contract.