What did the court decide in Mohri Bibi v. Dhurmodas Ghose?

A minor’s agreement is void ab initio. The mortgage executed by the minor was void and unenforceable.

Did the minor have to return the money?

No general duty to repay arose. Restitution is not ordered under Sections 64/65 ICA against a minor; only property still traceable may be restored.

Were the parents liable?

No. Parents were not liable because the dealings were done without their authority or knowledge.

Which section bars a minor from contracting?

Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act requires majority; hence minors are incompetent to contract.

What is the exam takeaway?

Minor’s contracts are void from the start; lenders who knowingly deal with minors cannot enforce repayment through contract law.

mohri-bibi-v-dhurmodas-ghose-minor-contract-void

Mohri Bibi v. Dhurmodas Ghose (Minor’s Contract is Void)

Contract Law Privy Council 1903 Citation: 30 IA 114 Bench: JCPC Reading time: ~4–5 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi | India | Published on 26 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

A moneylender took a mortgage from a minor. The Privy Council said a minor’s agreement is void from the start. The mortgage could not be enforced. The minor did not have to repay under contract law; only property still in his hands could be ordered back.

Issues

Was the mortgage executed by the minor void?
Should the money received be returned to the lender?

Rules

Section 11, ICA: Minors are incompetent to contract → their agreements are void.
Sections 64/65, ICA (restitution) do not create repayment duties against a minor for a void agreement.
Equity can order restoration only of property still traceable in the minor’s possession.

Exam Tip: “Void ab initio + limited restitution.” Quote this pair together.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline visual for Mohri Bibi v. Dhurmodas Ghose facts

20 Jul 1895: Dhurmodas, a minor, executed a mortgage over his property in favour of moneylender Brahmo Dutt for ₹20,000 at 12%.

Knowledge: The deed said he was major, but his mother notified the lender; the lender’s attorney knew he was a minor.

Suit: Minor and mother sued to set aside the mortgage as void.

Defence: Lender argued misrepresentation of age and sought denial of relief or repayment.

During case: Brahmo Dutt died; his executors continued the action.

Arguments

Appellant/Lender

Minor misrepresented age; should repay or be denied relief.
Sought equitable restitution for sums advanced.

Respondent/Minor

No capacity to contract → mortgage void ab initio.
No repayment under ICA for void agreements with minors; lender knew the minority.

Judgment (Held)

Judgment concept for Mohri Bibi v. Dhurmodas Ghose

The Privy Council held that the mortgage was void because the executant was a minor. The lender’s side knew of the minority. There was no contractual liability to repay. Parents were not liable for the minor’s dealings without their authority.

Contract void ab initio; mortgage set aside.
No general restitution against minor; only traceable property may be returned.

Ratio Decidendi

A minor is incompetent to contract (ICA §11). Any such agreement is void from the beginning. Sections 64/65 do not impose a repayment duty on a minor for a void agreement.

Why It Matters

Protects minors from contractual liability.
Warns lenders: deals with minors are unenforceable in contract.
Clarifies narrow scope of restitution against minors.

Key Takeaways

Minor’s agreement is void ab initio.
No contractual repayment; only traceable property may be restored.
Parents not liable without authority.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “MINOR = Made Invalid, No Ordinary Restitution”

Made Invalid: Contract void ab initio.
No Ordinary Restitution: No Sections 64/65 claim.

3-Step Exam Hook

Check capacity under §11 ICA.
Declare agreement void; deny enforcement.
Consider only traceable restitution, not repayment.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is a mortgage executed by a minor enforceable, and must the minor return the loan amount?

Rule

§11 ICA: minors lack capacity; agreements are void. §§64/65 ICA do not impose repayment on minors for void agreements.

Application

Lender’s agent knew the borrower was a minor; mortgage therefore void; restitution limited to any property still with the minor.

Conclusion

Mortgage set aside; no contractual repayment; parents not liable; appeal dismissed.

Glossary

Void ab initio: Invalid from the very start; it never had legal effect.
Restitution: Returning benefits received; against minors it is narrow—only traceable property may be ordered back.
Capacity: Legal ability to enter a contract; minors lack capacity under §11 ICA.