Court case(1903) 30 IA 114

A mortgage executed by a minor is void from the beginning. Sections 10 and 11 of the Contract Act require the parties to be competent, and a person who is not of the age of majority is not competent. Since the agreement is a nullity, sections 64 and 65 (which presuppose a contract) do not apply and the money advanced cannot be recovered from the minor.

Dharmodas Ghose, while still a minor, mortgaged his property to Brahmo Dutt, a money-lender, to secure a loan. Brahmo Dutt's agent knew that Dharmodas was a minor at the time. Dharmodas later sued, through his mother as guardian, for a declaration that the mortgage was void because he was a minor when he executed it.

The Privy Council held that the Contract Act makes it essential that all contracting parties be competent to contract, and expressly provides that a person who by reason of infancy is incompetent cannot make a contract. The mortgage was therefore void. Estoppel did not arise because the lender's agent knew the true age. Sections 64 and 65 apply only where there is a contract between competent parties, so no restitution was ordered.