Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Case Studies

Case study: Kedar Nath vs. Gorie Mohamed

An act done at the promisors desire furnishes a good consideration for his promise even though it is of no personal significance or benefit to him. The decision of the Calcutta High Court in Kedar Nath vs. Gourie Mohamed is well known in this context. It was thought advisable to erect a Town Hall at Howrah provided sufficient subscription could be got together for the purpose. For this reason the commissioners of Howrah municipality set out to work to obtain necessary funds by public subscription. Gorie Mohamed was a subscriber to this fund of Rs.100 having signed his name in the subscription book for that amount. On the faith of the promised subscriptions the plaintiff, Kedar Nath, entered into a contact with a contractor for the purpose of building the hall. But the defendant failed to pay the amount and contended that there was consideration for his promise. He was, however, held liable: People were asked to subscribe knowing the purpose for which the money was to be applied , they knew that on the faith of their subscription an obligation was to be incurred to pay the contractor for the work. The promise was: In consideration of your agreeing to enter into a contract to erect, I undertake to supply money for it. The act of the plaintiff in entering the contract with the contractor was done at the desire of the defendant, in this case the promisor, so as to constitute consideration within the meaning of Section 2(d).

It was indeed a promise to pay for the performance of an act and it could not have been revoked once the promise entered performance. The law for centuries has been that an act done at the request of another, express ort implied, is sufficient consideration to support a promise.

Case Study: Khwaja Muhammed vs. Husaini Begum

In India and among communities circumstanced as the Mahommedan, among whom marriages are contracted for minors by parents and guardians it might occasion serious injustice if the common law doctrine was applied to agreements entered into in connection with such contracts. The appellant executed an agreement with the respondents marriage with his son (both being minors at the time) he would pay to Husaini Begum Rs.500 a month in perpetuity for the betel-leaf expenses and charged certain properties with the payment, with power to the respondent to enforce it. The husband and wife separated on account of a quarrel and the suit was bought by the plaintiff- respondent for the recovery of the arrears of this annuity. It was held that the respondent although no party to the agreement, was clearly entitled to proceed in equity to endorse her claim. Here, the agreement executed by the defendant (appellant) Specifically charges immovable property for the allowance which he binds himself to pay to the plaintiff/ respondent, she is the only person beneficially entitled under it.

Case Study: Krishna Lal Sadhu Vs. Mt. Promila Bala Dassi
In this case the main contention that was urged on behalf of the two defendants who were the appellants is that the money payable under a policy of insurance, being policy no.4667,issued by the Hindustan cooperative insurance society limited, did form part of the assets of the estate of one Behary Lal Sircar deceased and that his widow Pramila Bala Dassi had no rights therein. The case was that one Behari Lal Sircar insured his life on 29th March 1910 for a sum of Rs.500.The policy put forward guaranteed that if the insured paid to the society at their office in Calcutta on 5th day of march 1910 each each succeeding year upto and including the year of his death the sum of Rs.21 and 11 annas only or in lieu of any such premium the full number of installments thereof as may be agreed upon, then upto the proof to the satisfaction to the office committee of the society of the death of the insured ,the society will pay to Srimati Pramila Bala Dassi, wife of insured(hereinafter called the nominee)at the head office of the society, Calcutta a preferred sum of Rs.500 only together with such additional sums by way of profits will become payable to after deducting there from the sum or sums, if any, due from him to the society. The assured paid all the premiums due on the policy till his death leaving his widow and three sons. So, as per the policy the plaintiff or the nominee of the policy claimed the amount of the policy from the society and the Insurance society were about to make the payment. But the Defendants 1, 2 and 3 had

obtained a decree against the three sons, legal heirs of the insured, that the money due under the policy formed part of the assets of the estate left by the insured and as creditors they had the right to realize the money from the Insurance Society. Thereafter the present suit was brought by the plaintiff to the court. For the first instance the plaintiffs suit was contested only on behalf of defendants 1 and 2 that the money due under the policy became the property of the plaintiff on the death of the deceased and did not form part of the assets of the estate left by him. Defendant 3 did not challenge the decree of the lower appellate court, which had affirmed the degree of first court, and so defendant 1 and 2 were the appellants. It was argued that the Married Womens Property Act of 1874 applies to this case and that therefore it cannot be questioned that there was a trust in favour of the plaintiff and that the latter was entitled to realize the money in question from the insurance society. It was also been contended that under the Civil Procedure Code the execution creditors were not entitled to attach the amount of the policy in execution of their decrees. The plaintiff was no doubt the nominee of the deceased; but she was no party to the contract between the deceased and Insurance Society. The contract was with the insured and nobody else. The promise is the one which could only take effect upon the husbands death and therefore it must be meant to be enforced then. Apart from any statute the right to sue on a contract would clearly pass to the legal personal representatives of the deceased. It therefore didnt seem that that apart from any statute such a policy would create any trust in favour of the wife. There would have a probability of husband altering the destination of the money at any time and might have dealt with it by will or settlement. So, apart from any statute, no interest would have passed to the wife by reason merely of her being named in the policy. Also,

there is nothing in section 60 of Civil Procedure Code preventing the creditors of the sons of the deceased assured from attaching money payable under it. Married Womens Property Act reveals that a Hindu widow claiming assureds money as a nominee is not entitled to it as the act does not apply and there is no trust in her favour by virtue of section 60.Taking into consideration all the above mentioned acts and past referred cases with regards to this ,the appeal succeeded and decision was taken on 22nd February 1928 that allowed the defendants/ creditors to recover the money from the Insurance society as the assets formed the part of the estate left by the deceased and they were entitled to it and the plaintiff had no right to enforce the claim. y person beneficially entitled under it.