Citation 1903 30 Cal 539 (Pc)
Bench: Lord McNaughton, Lord Davey, Lord Lindley, Sir Ford North, Sir Andrew Scoble, Sir Andrew Wilson
This case related to the minor’s agreement. It talks about the competency of a minor whether he or she can do a contract or not. In India minor whose age is below 18 is not competent to form a contract with any other person. These rules and regulations are formed to define the ambit of forming a contract among individuals. The contract with the minor is considered as void ab initio which means that boy from the beginning and no court has a right to entertain such cases and hence no liabilities can be imposed with the help of the court on the accused and hence indirectly the respondent should have to beer by the aggrieved party.
In this case, Dharmodas Ghose was the respondent regarding a particular case. He was a whole sole owner of his whole immovable property. He has a huge property which he wants to mortgage for a loan. The property has been looked after by his mother because she is a major person. He went to complete his mortgage of property in the favour of the appellant who is Brahmo Dutt and successfully completed the mortgage deed in rupees 20000 with 12% interest per year.
Brahmo that was a money lender at that time and all his mortgage deed and the economy works are handled by his attorney that is Kedarnath. The mother of Dharmo Das Ghosh tells all the terms and conditions about the minor of Dharmo Das to the Attorney of the more than that is Kedarnath. The problem here arises that the proportion of the loan was delivered less than the fixed amount that is 2000 rupees.
The representative of the defendant said that the moneylender is already provided with the amount of money that is needed for the mortgage. Further on the behalf of that, he said that Dharma 10 work incompetent to perform any mortgage a contract with a person because it is void ab initio by the law.
After all the issues, on 10th October 1896 with his mother file a complaint against Brahmo Dutt defining the contract between the parties as what according to the law and there should be a pardon given to the Dharmodas Ghose for or not completion of the contract.
Bring all the suits and petitioner Brahmo that was died so the case was headed by his legal heirs or his executive to finalize the case. The legal hair of Brahmo Dutt was proclaimed that the respondent conceives the reality and the material facts which leads to the change of the decision of the Brahmo Dutt. As he has a wrongful intention behind the hiding of his real age only to commit fraud with him because these contracts are void by law so no compensation will be awarded to the aggrieved party
- Whether the same did was void under section 2 of the Indian Contract Act?
- Whether the defendant is liable to repay the amount of loan which he has obtained from that sale deed?
- Whether the mortgage commenced by the defendant is voidable or not?
According to the trial court, the sale deed which was comments between Brahmo Dutt and Dharmodas Ghose was declared as void. And when any contract is declared as void then there will be no validity of the contract as no one can demand any sort of compensation.
Brahmo Dutt was not happy with the decision of trial court so he appeals to Calcutta High Court. On the decision of the trial court was for the given by the high court and the appeal of Brahmo that was dismissed by the court. After this, he has appealed in the Privy Council but his efforts go in vain because the Privy Council also headed with the decision of the trial court and high court and displays the suit of Brahmo Dutt.
There is one concept that was raised by the aggrieved party that Dharma Das Bose has conceal the facts regarding his actual age while dealing with a contract. The mother of the groom cancelled these arguments because he was already disclosing all the material facts to the attorney of Brahmo Dutt. It was considered is if any information is given to the server and then it will go to the master. Hence there is no concealment of facts on the part of Dharmo Das and he cannot be made liable in any case.
The final decision that has been taken by the court is as follows:
- Any contract performed with the minor is void in eyes of law
- Any contract in which a party is incompetent to form that contract is void ab initio
- The respondent that is Dharmodas Ghose is not being held liable to repay the amount of loan that was decided at the time of mortgage
Principles lead in this case
No contract can be formed with the minor and if any person has done so then that particular contract will be declared as word as void ab initio and hence no liability will be raised on the shoulder of minor
If any such contract formed then the court will not entertain that particular case
With the help of this case, we can conclude that a person must have to be there with the terms and conditions of the contract which has been framed by the statute of India so that she will not face any other problems regarding then force ability and acceptance of that case. All the principles must have to be e disclose of so that the person can give free concert over a particular topic a contract. where all the conditions of the contract are fulfilled then only a particular agreement is considered as a contract in the eyes of law then only it can be enforceable under Indian contract act 1872.