Concept of minority who is minor Mohori bibee v. Damodardas ghosh case laws doctrine of restitution principle of estoppel not applicable.

2.  A minor shall be incompetent to act as guardian of the
property of any minor.
 After the commencement of The Hindu Minority and
Guardianship Act, no person shall be entitled to
dispose of, or deal with, the property of a Hindu
minor merely on the ground of his or her being the de
facto guardian of the minor

3.  There was no specific laws were required regarding the guardianship, during the
Hindu Dharamshastras,due to the concept of joint families where a child without
parents is taken care of by the head of the joint family. Thus no specific laws were
required regarding the guardianship.The Hindu law of guardianship of minor
children has been codified and reformed by the Hindu Minority and Guardianship
Act, 1956. The subject may be discussed under the following heads :
(i) Guardianship of person of minors
(ii) Guardianship of the property of minors
(iii) De facto guardians
(iv) Guardians by affinity.

4.  Under the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act,
1956, S. 4(a), minor means a person who has not
completed the age of eighteen years. A minor is
considered to be a person who is physically and
intellectually imperfect and immature and hence
needs someone's protection.

5.  BRIEF FACTS:-
 The plaintiff, Dharmodas Ghose, while he was a minor,
mortgaged his property in favour of the defendant,
Brahmo Dutt, who was a moneylender to secure a loan
of Rs. 20,000. The actual amount of loan given was
less than Rs. 20,000. At the time of the transaction the
attorney, who acted on behalf of the money lender, had
the knowledge that the plaintiff is a minor.

6.  The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant stating that he was a
minor when the mortgage was executed by him and, therefore, mortgage
was void and inoperative and the same should be cancelled. By the time
of Appeal to the Privy Council the defendant, Brahmo Dutt died and the
Appeal was prosecuted by his executors.
 The Defendant, amongst other points, contended that the plaintiff had
fraudulently misrepresented his age and therefore no relief should be
given to him, and that, if mortgage is cancelled as requested by the
plaintiff, the plaintiff should be asked to repay the sum of Rs. 10,500
advanced to him.

7.  The Privy Council was held that the minors contract is void and not
merely voidable on the basis of section 10, 11, 183, 184 and old sections
246 and 247(now section 30 of the Partnership Act). The combine effect
of these sections and particularly section 10 and 11 renders the minor
contact completely void . According to the Privy Council section 11
should be literally construed and that only a person who is of the age of
the majority is competent to contract. A minor’s contract is, therefore, ab
initio and wholly void. In the view of the Privy Council, this was also in
accordance with the Hindu Notion of a minor’s incompetence to contract

8.  Action in contract cannot be converted into an action in tort:
 In Jhonson v. Pye an infant by fraudulently misrepresenting his age
induced the Plaintiff to lend him 300 dollar. The plaintiff brought an
action against for the tort of deceit. The action was rejected by the court
on the grounds that it was an indirect way of enforcing the contract
which is void. Thus an action of contract cannot be converted into an
action in tort so as to make the infant responsible. The court added than
if an action in contract is allowed to be converted into an action in tort,
all the minor’s in England may be ruined

9.  If a minor obtains some property by fraudulently
misrepresenting his age, he can be ordered to restore the
property or goods thus obtained. This is called the equitable
doctrine. Under the English law, a minor may be compelled
to restore the goods or property so long as they are
traceable. Money being generally not traceable, a minor
cannot be asked to restore it.

10.  The term ‘estoppel’ may be defined as prevention of a claim or
assertion by law. In other words, when someone makes another person
to believe that a particular thing or fact is true, then later on he cannot
be allowed to deny the truth of that thing.It will be interesting to know
that there is no such estoppel against the minor. In other words, when a
minor fraudulently enters into a contract, representing that he is a
major, but in reality he is not, then later on he can plead his minority as
a defence and cannot be stopped (i.e. prevented) from doing so.