Dharmodas Ghose Case Study

1602 Words7 Pages
Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 2 CASE BRIEF 2 LEGAL POSITION 2 JUDGEMENT 3 1) Issue of estoppel: 3 2) Whether money should be returned back or not: 3 3) Minor’s agreement: voidable or altogether void? 4 4) Question of restitution: 5 5) Minor Seeking Relief, Compellable to Restore 5 6) BENEFICIAL CONTRACT 5 CONCLUSION 6 INTRODUCTION The law relating to contracts in India is contained in Indian Contract Act, 1872.Under Section 2 (H) of this act, it is said that an agreement enforceable by law is said to be a contract when documented and signed. It was a question whether a mortgage executed by a minor in form of a contract is enforceable against him or by any other person on his behalf. CASE BRIEF The plaintiff, Dharmodas Ghose, while he was a minor, mortgaged his property to secure a loan of Rs. 20,000 from Brahmo Dutt, a moneylender. The plaintiff pleaded that since he was a minor when the mortgage was executed; it was void and cannot be executed. The Defendant apart from other issues contended that the plaintiff had misrepresented his age and therefore no relief should be given to him. If mortgage was cancelled, the plaintiff must be asked to repay the sum that as advanced to him. LEGAL POSITION According to section 2 of the contract act, each promise resulting in consideration is an agreement which, if enforceable…show more content…
Fakhruddin Mahomed Chowdhuery. “The court said that it was not within the competence either of the manager of the minor’s estate or of the guardian of the minor, to bind the minor or the minor’s estate by a contract for the purchase of immovable property; that as the minor was not bound by the contract. In its subsequent pronouncement in Sirkakulam Subramanyam v. Kurra Subba Rao, the Privy Council overruled earlier decisions and said that it was within the powers of the mother of a minor as guardian to enter into a contract if it is for the benefit of the

    More about Dharmodas Ghose Case Study

      Open Document