Question

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) 30 Cal 539 (PC) deals with

• A. Capacity to contract
• B. Rule of res gestae
• C. Doctrine of pith and substance
• D. Res ipsa loquitur

Answer 1

The Correct Option is A

The case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose (1903) 30 Cal 539 (PC) is a landmark legal decision that deals with the issue of capacity to contract. In this case, the Privy Council addressed whether a contract made with a minor is void or voidable.
 

The facts of the case are as follows: A minor, Dharmodas Ghose, executed a mortgage in favor of a moneylender, Mohori Bibee. At the time of the agreement, Dharmodas was underage according to the Indian Contract Act, 1872, which means he was not legally competent to enter into a contract.
 

The primary legal issue revolved around the applicability of Section 11 of the Indian Contract Act, which states that a person is competent to contract if they are of the age of majority, of sound mind, and not disqualified from contracting by any law they are subject to.
 

The ruling concluded that any contract entered into by a minor is void ab initio (from the beginning), meaning it has no legal force or effect from the outset. As such, the mortgage agreement with Dharmodas was rendered void, and the moneylender was unable to enforce it against him.
 

This case established the principle that minors lack the capacity to contract and any agreement they make is not enforceable unless it is for their benefit and necessity.

Case	Legal Issue	Outcome
Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose	Capacity to contract	Contract with minor is void