Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 stipulates that contracting parties must possess legal competence, and Section 11 specifies that minors lack such competence. Due to the Contract Act's omission of specific provisions regarding the nature of minor's contracts, it becomes imperative to determine whether such contracts are void or voidable.

In 1903, the Privy Council in Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose provided a definitive answer to this question, ruling that agreements involving minors are void ab initio, meaning they are legally invalid from their inception.

The case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose is a pivotal precedent in Indian contract law, delving into the validity of contracts, specifically involving minors. The pivotal question in this case was whether a contract signed by a minor could be legally binding upon them.

Dharmodas Ghose, a minor, mortgaged his assets to obtain a loan from Brahmo Dutt, a moneylender, in this instance. The loan, however, was procured through fraudulent means and misrepresentation by Dharmodas Ghose's guardian, who acted as his representative. The guardian concealed Dharmodas Ghose's minority from Brahmo Dutt, rendering the contract voidable at the minor's discretion.

Dharmodas Ghose had executed a mortgage for Rs. 20,030/-. The money lender had paid Rs. 8,000/- on the security of mortgage. The minor sued for setting aside the mortgage. It was held that a contract by a minor was void and that the amount advanced by the lender could not be recovered under sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act.

Further, a minor's agreement remains void even after they reach the age of majority, as it is inherently invalid from the outset ('void ab initio'). Ratification of a contract only takes effect from the date it is made. Since the minor's contract was void from the beginning, subsequent ratification cannot make it valid. If a legally enforceable contract is desired, a new agreement must be established after the minor reaches adulthood, supported by fresh consideration.

Sections 64 and 65 of the Indian Contract Act govern the return of benefits received under voidable and void contracts, but these provisions do not apply to contracts involving minors, as established in the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose. Therefore, the restitution remedies provided in the Contract Act are not available in such cases.

The pivotal legal question in the case revolved around the validity of a contract entered into by a minor, which could be annulled at their discretion, and whether it could be affirmed upon reaching adulthood. The Privy Council determined that such a contract was inherently null and void from its inception and, therefore, could not be ratified. Consequently, despite attaining majority, Dharmodas Ghose remained exempt from the obligations imposed by the contract entered into during his minority.

In the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose, Mohori Bibee did not participate directly in the lawsuit as a plaintiff or defendant. Nonetheless, her status as Dharmodas Ghose's mother and legal guardian during the contract's execution was crucial. As Ghose's guardian, Mohori Bibee managed his affairs and, while not directly involved in the legal proceedings, her presence sheds light on the context of Ghose's actions and the legal consequences of his agreement with Brahmo Dutt.

The Case Cemented Several Pivotal Principles Of Indian Contract Law, Including:

• Capacity to Contract: It reiterated that minors possess limited capacity to enter into contracts. Contracts executed by minors are considered voidable at their discretion. This principle acknowledges that minors may lack the maturity and comprehension necessary to fully grasp the ramifications of their contractual obligations, thereby safeguarding them from potentially detrimental agreements.
   
• Ratification of Voidable Contracts: The ruling established that contracts that can be voided by one party cannot be ratified after the reasons for voidability no longer apply. Once a minor becomes an adult, they cannot validate a contract made during their minority that was voidable due to their legal incapacity.
   
• Fraud and Misrepresentation: Emphasizing the significance of good faith and transparency, the case revealed the significance of good faith and transparency in contract formation. The contract was initiated through fraudulent and misleading actions by Dharmodas Ghose's guardian, rendering it subject to annulment. This case underscores the vital necessity for parties to a contract to approach each other with integrity and fairness throughout the process.
   
• Protection of Minors: The case exemplified the legal safeguards provided to minors in contractual arrangements, recognizing their vulnerability and aiming to prevent exploitation and unjust agreements. By declaring the contract voidable at the minor's discretion, the court reinforced the principle of protecting minors' interests, ensuring they are not bound by agreements that could potentially harm them.

Criticism of 'Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose':
Critics of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose argue that it overprotects minors, neglecting the rights of innocent parties defrauded by them or their guardians. The ruling's strict adherence to the principle of minors' contractual incapacity overlooks equitable principles that could prevent unjust enrichment for defrauded parties. The narrow interpretation of the ruling fails to provide adequate compensation for victims of fraud, potentially damaging trust in contractual agreements.

The ruling's lack of provisions for restitution of benefits obtained through fraud creates a legal void, leaving defrauded parties without appropriate remedies. Critics contend that the decision's focus on protecting minors creates an imbalance, unfairly favoring minors over other parties involved in contracts. While the decision safeguards vulnerable individuals, it fails to address the broader consequences of fraudulent contracts, raising concerns about its fairness and effectiveness in promoting equitable outcomes in contract law.

Conclusion:
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose remains a foundational case shaping contract law in India. It established the principle that minors lack the legal capacity to enter into binding contracts, safeguarding them from potential exploitation. The case emphasized the significance of fraud and misrepresentation in determining the validity of contracts, particularly those involving minors. It highlighted the legal protection extended to vulnerable parties in contractual transactions, including minors, to prevent unfair advantages. The case's principles continue to be influential in contemporary legal proceedings involving contracts entered into by minors.

In this case, minors' legal capacity to contract was clarified, with contracts entered into by them being voidable. The protection of minors from exploitation was emphasized, safeguarding them from unfair agreements. Full disclosure and good faith in contract formation were highlighted as essential elements. Equitable remedies for fraud were deemed necessary, contributing to the development of contract law principles. Subsequent judicial decisions on minors and contract validity were influenced by the landmark case.

Written By: Md.Imran Wahab, IPS, IGP, Provisioning, West Bengal
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9836576565