What rule does this case establish?

A subscription promise becomes enforceable when the promisee changes position based on it; such reliance supplies valid consideration under Section 2(d) ICA.

Can one person sue on behalf of many subscribers?

Yes, under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, one person may sue on behalf of all interested persons with the court’s permission.

Why was the subscription recoverable from the defendant?

Because the commissioners acted on the promise, entered contracts, and altered their position. That reliance amounted to consideration.

What about Section 25 ICA?

Agreements without consideration are void. Here, consideration existed through the promisee’s reliance and action, so the agreement was valid.

Can a unilateral promise be revoked after reliance begins?

No. Once the promisee begins to act on the promise and alters position, revocation is not permitted.

kedarnath-bhattacharji-v-gorie-mahomed-subscription-as-consideration

Kedarnath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed (Subscription as Consideration)

Contract Law Calcutta High Court 1866 Citation: ILR 14 Cal 64 Bench: High Court Reading time: ~4 min

Author: Gulzar Hashmi | India | Published on 26 Oct 2025

```

Quick Summary

A citizen promised ₹100 to a public fund to build a town hall. The committee relied on this promise, hired a contractor, and expanded plans. Later the promisor refused to pay. The court said the promise was enforceable because the committee acted in reliance on it. That reliance counted as valid consideration.

Issues

Can the plaintiff (and interested persons) sue the subscriber for the promised amount?
Does a subscription promise create valid consideration so that it is legally recoverable?

Rules

Order 1 Rule 8 CPC: One person may sue on behalf of many with the court’s leave.
Section 2(d) ICA: When the promisee does (or abstains from) something at the promisor’s desire, it is consideration.
Section 25 ICA: Agreements without consideration are void—unless consideration exists as above.

Exam Tip: Reliance + change of position by the committee supplied the consideration.

Facts (Timeline)

Plan formed: Plaintiff (Howrah Municipality Vice-Chairman, trustee) proposed building a Town Hall through public subscriptions.

Contracts made: As subscriptions grew, commissioners (incl. plaintiff) contracted with a builder; plans were sanctioned.

Scope raised: With more pledges, plans expanded; cost rose to about ₹40,000.

Defendant’s promise: On request, defendant subscribed ₹100 in the list.

Refusal: Later, defendant refused to pay; plaintiff sued to recover the subscription.

Arguments

Appellant/Pltf.

We acted on the promise, hired a contractor, and expanded plans—this is consideration under §2(d) ICA.
We may sue on behalf of all interested persons under Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.

Respondent/Def.

A bare promise to subscribe is gratuitous and void under §25 ICA.
No enforceable consideration moved to the promisor.

Judgment (Held)

The Court held the contract valid and supported by good consideration. When the committee changed its position and entered contracts relying on the subscription, consideration arose under §2(d) ICA.

A unilateral promise cannot be revoked once the promisee begins to act on it.
Order 1 Rule 8 CPC allows representative action for all interested subscribers.

Ratio Decidendi

Reliance on a subscription promise that leads the promisee to incur liability or expense creates consideration. Hence, the promise is enforceable despite §25 ICA.

Why It Matters

Supports public projects funded by pledges where committees act on promises.
Protects trust-based community initiatives from last-minute revocation.
Clarifies how consideration can arise through reliance.

Key Takeaways

Subscription + reliance = valid consideration under §2(d) ICA.
Bare promises are void under §25—unless reliance creates consideration.
Representative suit is possible via Order 1 Rule 8 CPC.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SUB → ACT → FACT”

SUB: Subscription promise is made.
ACT: Committee acts and changes position.
FACT: Consideration is a fact → promise enforceable.

3-Step Exam Hook

Identify subscription + reliance.
Map to §2(d) ICA (consideration).
Answer §25 objection; cite representative suit under O1 R8.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Is a subscription promise enforceable, and can the plaintiff sue for all interested persons?

Rule

§2(d) ICA (consideration), §25 ICA (void without consideration), Order 1 Rule 8 CPC (representative suit).

Application

The committee relied on the promise, signed contracts, and increased scope—this reliance provided consideration.

Conclusion

Promise enforceable; suit maintainable on behalf of interested persons; amount recoverable from the subscriber.

Glossary

Consideration (§2(d) ICA): A benefit/detriment at the promisor’s desire; here, reliance and contracts entered.
Gratuitous Promise (§25 ICA): Promise without consideration; generally void unless consideration exists.
Representative Suit (O1 R8 CPC): One sues for many with common interest, with court’s permission and notice.