Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose Judgement

 Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose(1903) 

 

Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose(1903)


Facts of the case 

In this case, Dharmodas became the defendant. He became minor and he became additionally the only proprietor of the assets (immovable). As in line with Calcutta High courtroom docket, the mom of Dharmodas has legal as his felony custodian. One day Dharmodas mortgaged his assets for taking a mortgage with Bharmo Dutt. He became minor while he mortgages his assets with Dharmodas. He secured his mortgaged deed on the charge of 12% hobby on 20,000. Bharmo Dutt became a moneylender while he signed a loan with Dharmodas. Kedar Nath acted because of the lawyer or agent of Bharmo Dutt. One day respondent's mom dispatched a notification to Bharmo Dutt approximately telling approximately the minority of Dharmodas on the time of mortgaged deed and additionally stated the mortgage quantity became much less than 20,000. Kedar Nath became privy to the truth that the respondent became minor at the time of the loan deed and he became now no longer entitled to make an agreement with him and additionally now no longer entitled to loan his assets. 

Dharmodas alongside together along with his mom introduced a felony movement in opposition to the BharmoDutt on 10 September 1985 by pronouncing that he became minor on the time of loan of the assets that’s why the agreement is void and ought to be revoked. When the petition became in process, BharmoDutt died and the closing petition became litigated through his agent Kedar Nath. 

Issues of the Case 

  1. Whether the loan deed became void or now no longer that became signed among Dharmodas and Bharmo Dutt, below phase 210, and 11 of the Indian Contract Act 1972. 

  1. Whether the respondent became prone to go back the mortgage quantity or now no longer that became obtained at the time of the mortgaged deed. 

  1. Whether the loan deed started out through Dharmodas became avoidable or now no longer.   

The argument of Plaintiff 

  1. Dharmodas became fundamental on the time of loan of assets. 

  1. Appellant and his agent had been now no longer privy to the truth that the respondent became minor at the time of the mortgaged deed. 

  1. Respondent made a fraudulent assertion approximately the age that’s why now no longer entitled to take the relaxation of age. 

  1. Rule of estoppel ought to be implemented to respondent below the phase of one hundred fifteen of the Indian Evidence Act 1972. 

  1. Respondent is prone to pay the complete quantity that he's taking at some point of the mortgaged deed below phase 3864 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, and phase 41 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. 

The argument of Respondent 

  1. Bharmodas and his agent had been privy to the truth that the respondent became minor at the time of the mortgaged deed. 

  1. Respondent became minor at the time of loan deed that’s why no agreement takes location and now no longer entitled to go back the mortgage quantity. 





Judgment 

The trial courtroom docket handed verdict by pronouncing that the agreement between Dharmodas and Bharmo Dutt became void due to the fact Dharmodas became minor at the time of execution of the loan and the agreement with the minor is void. So there has been no agreement take location. After trial courtroom docket handed judgment When Bharmo Dutt became now no longer glad about the judgment. He filed an enchantment in Calcutta excessive courtroom docket. After visible the trial courtroom docket judgment HC brushed off the enchantment of  Bharmo Dutt by pronouncing that agreement with minor is null and void withinside the eyes of the regulation.  After brushed off the enchantment through High Court, he dispatched a letter of enchantment withinside the privy council. The privy council additionally brushed off the enchantment of Bharmodutt by pronouncing that there cannot be any agreement take location among the fundamental and minor birthday celebration. Dharmodas became now no longer equipped to make an agreement due to the fact he became minor, that’s why Bharmo Dutt can do now no longer search for taking relief.  

The very last choice handed through the council became that the agreement with minor or little one character or birthday celebration may be void from the starting (Void ab Initio). Because minor and little one character isn't always capable of recognizing the character and way of the agreement withinside the eyes of the regulation. That’s why minors became now no longer equipped to make this type of agreement or loan deed with any character or birthday celebration. Such an agreement may be void from the very starting withinside the eyes of regulation and Dharmodas became now no longer entitled to go back the cash that he's taking at some point of loan deed. 

 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Cyclone Yaas Online Live Update | Yaas cyclone track 2021 | Live Weather Map | Live Cyclone Map | Live location of Cyclone Yaas

[PDF] THE FARMERS (EMPOWERMENT AND PROTECTION) AGREEMENT ON PRICE ASSURANCE AND FARM SERVICES BILL, 2020

BEHIND THE STORY OF WORLD LAUGHTER DAY? -Find Your Advocate

World Environment Day 2022 Theme | Find Your Advocate

Right to Privacy in India | Constitution of India | article 21- Find Your Advvocate

[Article 25-28] Freedom of Religion - Indian Constitution | FindYourAdvocate

Article 21 of Indian Constitution | PDF of Article 21 Indian Constitution | Find Your Advocate

18 Must Reading Books For Law Student | Reading Books List for Lawyer or Advocate