Dharmodas Ghose executed a mortgage at age 15 to secure a loan from Brahmo Dutt. Ghose argued the mortgage should be void due to his minority. Brahmo Dutt claimed Ghose misrepresented his age and should be estopped from denying the mortgage. The court found both parties knew of Ghose's minority, so section 115 did not apply. As attaining majority is essential to forming a contract, and Ghose was a minor, the mortgage contract was void from the beginning. Therefore, Ghose was not liable to repay the loan and the appeal was dismissed, upholding the lower courts' rulings.

1. BY: SAJAL KHANDELWAL
*

2. INTRODUCTION
 On July 20, 1895, the respondent, Dhurmodas Ghose,
executed a mortgage in favour of Brahmo Dutt, a money-
lender carrying on business at Calcutta and elsewhere, to
secure the repayment of Rs. 20,000 at 12 per cent. interest
on same house belonging to the respondent. 10,500 were
received by ghose The amount actually advanced is in
dispute. At that time the respondent was an infant; and he
did not attain twenty-one until the month of September
following. Throughout the transaction Brahmo Dutt was
absent from Calcutta, and the whole business was carried
through for him by his attorney Kedar Nath Mittal

3. Before the execution of the mortgage deed, the mother-cum-
guardian of the respondent gave a notice in writing to Brahmo
Dutt through his counsel Kedar Nath who was acting in the
matter of Brahmo Dutt, which was dispatched by her attorney
Mr. Bhupendra Nath Bose, explicitly informing Brahmo Dutt
about the status of minority of the respondent while
executing the mortgage deed in his favour. On the same,
Kedar Nath took the infants declaration and took his signature
on the same, providing a reasonable explanation showing his
majority. the mortgagor sued for setting aside the mortgage
on the ground of his (ghosh’s) minority at the time of
execution of mortgage deed

4. WHAT dharmodas ghosh
did?
Dharmodas Ghose and his mother raised the
arguments on their behalf, that as per section 10
and 11 of the Indian Contract Act 1872, a minor is
not entitled to be a party in a contract.

5. Section 10 All agreements are contracts if they are
made by the free consent of parties competent to
contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful
object, and are not hereby expressly declared to be
void.
Every person is competent to contract who is of the
age of majority according to the law to which he is
subject, and who is of sound mind, and is not
disqualified from contracting by any law to which he
is subject but in ghosh’s case he was a minor thus he
was disqualified from contacting
WHAT LAW SAYS??

6. Brahmo Dutt, contested the case, putting forward the
arguments that, the respondent was major at the time of
execution of the Mortgage deed and that he, as well as
his attorney Kedar Nath had no information regarding his
minority. The fraudulent declaration made by the
respondent as to his age should disentitle him to gain any
relief therefrom, because it should be regarded as
estopple, as per section-115 of the Indian Evidence Act
1872, and court should order him to repay the advanced
money that was forwarded by the mortgagee in lieu of
the mortgage deed.

7. INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872
 The Indian Evidence Act,[originally passed in India by
the Imperial Legislative Council in 1872, during
the British Raj, contains a set of rules and allied issues
governing admissibility of evidence in the Indian courts
of law.
 Section 115-When one person has, by his declaration,
act or omission, intentionally caused or permitted
another person to believe a thing to be true and to act
upon such belief, neither he nor his representative shall
be allowed, in any suit or proceeding between himself
and such person or his representative, to deny the truth
of that thing.

8. JUDGEMENT
 Sir Ford North wrote and pronounced the judgment relying upon the
arguments that were put-forward by the respondent and taken following
facts into consideration that, Kedar Nath was in full charge of this
transaction on behalf of Brahmo Dutt in the capacity of an agent and
principal.
 The court held that section-115 of the Evidence Act does not apply in the
present case because both the parties were aware of the truth and the
Appellant was not misled. Relying on this, Privy Council held that, there
was no contract between the parties as attaining majority is essential to
form a contract. Hence, this contract was void ab-initio and in
furtherance to it, as there was no contract in existence, so all the
transactions that took place during that course doesn’t exist in the eyes
of law.
 Therefore the respondent is not liable to give the proceeded money
back. The appeal filed by the appellants was dismissed and the decision
of the trial court and 1st Appellate Court was upheld.

9. THANK YOU…....