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.