Doraswamy Iyer v. Arunachala Ayyar (1935) AIR 1936 Mad 135
Introduction
This case examines consideration in contract law under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It addresses whether a promise to contribute to a public cause without any binding obligation is enforceable.
Facts
- The trustees of a temple undertook repairs in February 1928, initially funded by village common funds.
- As costs increased, additional subscriptions were collected in October 1928.
- The defendant subscribed ₹125 in a subscription list but later refused to pay.
- The trustees sued, claiming they incurred liability based on promised contributions.
- The lower court ruled in favor of the trustees, stating their reliance on the promise created a valid contract.
- The defendant argued that his promise lacked consideration and was thus unenforceable.
Issues Involved
- Does a promise to subscribe create a binding contract?
- Was there valid consideration for the defendant’s promise under Indian law?
Court’s Observations
- Definition of Consideration (Section 2(d) of ICA):
- A contract requires the promisee to act at the promisor’s request.
- Here, no request was made by the defendant for the temple trustees to act.
- Comparison with Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed:
- In Kedarnath Bhattacharji, the trustees incurred an obligation based on public subscriptions, forming a valid contract.
- Here, the repairs were already in progress before the defendant’s subscription, meaning his promise was not linked to any obligation.
- Reference to In re Hudson (1885):
- A similar case where a promised contribution to a chapel was not enforced, as the promisee did not undertake any liability at the promisor’s request.
- The court ruled that a voluntary promise is not binding without mutual obligations.
Judgment
- The promise was a bare promise, unsupported by consideration.
- There was no request by the defendant for the trustees to perform any act in exchange for his promise.
- The Madras High Court dismissed the suit, ruling the defendant was not liable to pay ₹125.
Conclusion
- This case confirms that a mere promise to contribute is not enforceable unless the promisee acts based on the promisor’s request.
- Consideration requires mutual obligations, making voluntary promises non-binding under Indian contract law.
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now