What did the Court decide about a minor’s agreement?

A contract with a minor is void ab initio under Section 11 ICA. It cannot be enforced against the minor.

Can the minor ratify the contract on attaining majority?

No. A void agreement cannot be made valid by later ratification after majority.

Was the lender aware of the minority?

Yes. The lender’s representative knew the borrower was a minor, which supported the finding that the mortgage was void.

Does the minor have to return the loan amount?

No contractual liability arises. Restitution depends on facts and equity, but the void contract itself is unenforceable.

What is the key teaching for exams?

Capacity is essential. Without capacity (Section 11), there is no contract; therefore, the agreement is void from the start.

Law Easy

01 January, 1970

1551

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) — Minor’s Agreement Void ab Initio (Sec 11 ICA) | The Law Easy

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) 30 I.A. 114

Indian Contract Act, 1872 Section 11 — Capacity Privy Council India ≈6 min read

Author: Gulzar Hashmi Published: 30-Oct-2023 Tags: Minor’s Agreement, Void ab Initio, Capacity to Contract

```

Quick Summary

This case fixes a basic rule: a minor cannot make a valid contract. Any agreement with a minor is void ab initio (void from the start). It cannot be enforced and cannot be “fixed” later by ratification after majority. Here, a mortgage made when the borrower was a minor was held void.

```

Issues

Is the deed void under Sections 2, 10, 11 of the ICA?
Must the minor return the loan taken under a void mortgage?
Is the mortgage void or merely voidable?

Rules

Section 11, ICA: Only a person of majority age, sound mind, and not disqualified can contract.
Capacity is an essential of a valid contract (Sections 2 & 10).
A contract with a minor is void ab initio and cannot be ratified after majority.

ICA 1872 Sec 11

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic of minor's mortgage and court appeals

Loan & Mortgage: Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, mortgaged property for a loan linked to Brahmo Dutt; later interest sold to Mohori Bibee.

Knowledge: Lender’s agent knew the borrower was a minor.

Suit Filed: Dharmodas and his mother sued to set aside the mortgage as void.

Trial Court: Held the mortgage contract void.

High Court (Calcutta): Confirmed the Trial Court; appeal by lender dismissed.

Privy Council: Final appeal after lender’s death proceeded through executors.

Arguments

Respondent / Minor

Being a minor, he lacked capacity; the mortgage was void.
Lender’s side knew about the minority.
No ratification possible after majority for a void agreement.

Appellant / Lender’s Side

Sought enforcement or repayment; claimed misrepresentation of age.
Argued the deed should not be treated as void from inception.
Pushed for equitable return of money advanced.

Judgment

Held: The mortgage was void ab initio; a minor cannot contract (Sec 11 ICA).
A void contract cannot be ratified after majority.
No contractual duty on the minor to repay under the void deed; restitution is a separate equitable matter.

Ratio

Capacity is a must for a valid contract. Since a minor lacks capacity under Section 11, ICA, any agreement with a minor is void from the beginning and cannot be cured by later approval.

Why It Matters

Foundation case for capacity to contract in India.
Guides banks and lenders on due diligence regarding age.
Often tested in exams for void vs voidable understanding.

Key Takeaways

Capacity First

No capacity → no contract (Sec 11).

Void ab Initio

Minor’s agreement is void from the start.

No Ratification

Cannot be validated after majority.

Lender Caution

Check age and competence before contracting.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “NO CAP = NO CONTRACT.”

NO CAPacity → agreement is void.
NO RATification after majority.
NO REPAY under the void deed (contractually).

3-Step Hook:

Ask: Is the person a minor?
If yes: contract is void ab initio.
Remember: later ratification does not work.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Validity of a mortgage executed by a minor and consequences.

Rule

Sec 11 ICA: only those with capacity can contract; minor’s agreement is void.

Application

Borrower was a minor; lender knew; essentials of a valid contract were missing.

Conclusion

Mortgage void ab initio; no ratification; no contractual repayment duty.

Glossary

Void ab Initio: Invalid from the very beginning; treated as having no legal effect.
Capacity: Legal ability to enter a contract (age, sound mind, no disqualification).
Ratification: Later approval of an act—not possible for a void contract with a minor.

FAQs

No. The mortgage is void because the minor lacks capacity to contract.

No contractual liability arises from a void agreement. Equity and restitution are separate considerations.

No. A void contract cannot be ratified after majority; a new contract would be needed.

Capacity (Sec 11) is essential. Minor’s agreements are void ab initio—do not confuse with voidable contracts.

Quick Jump

Case Meta

CASE_TITLE: Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) 30 I.A. 114
PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 11 ICA, Minor’s Agreement, Void ab Initio
SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Capacity to Contract, Ratification, Mortgage
PUBLISH_DATE: 30-Oct-2023
AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi
LOCATION: India
Slug: mohori-bibee-v-dharmodas-ghose-1903-30-ia-114

```

Comment

Nothing for now