Skip to content


Babu Bindeshri Prasad Vs. Kuar Sarju Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported inAIR1923All590; 73Ind.Cas.458
AppellantBabu Bindeshri Prasad
RespondentKuar Sarju Singh
Excerpt:
contract act ( ix of 1872), sections 23, 25 - unlawful consideration--debt incurred when borrower under court of wards--inadequacy of consideration. - u.p. zamindari abolition & lands reforms act, 1951 [act no. 1/1951]. section 3(4) & u.p. land revenue act, (3 of 1901). sections 14-a (3) & 14; [s.rafat alam, r.k.agarwal & ashok bhushan, jj] expression collector- held, it includes additional collector. powers and functions of collector can be exercised by additional collector under section 198(4) of 1950 act, provided he has been so directed by collector of the district. [1996 aihc 3628 overruled]......time and that the balance, rs. 1,200, represented the sum which had been secured by the prom ssory-note executed by the defendant's father.5. the present suit was on this bond and the courts below have decreed the claim. the argument in the court below, as here, is that in no case can the plaintiff recover this sum of rs. 1,200 on the ground that there was an unlawful consideration.6. we think this plea cannot be maintained. we agree with the learned judge of the court below that the consideration so far as it concerns this sun of rs. 1,200 was not an unlawful consideration within the meaning of section 23 of the contract act.7. further, it cannot, we think, be argued that there was no consideration for the bond so as to bring the case within the purview of section 25. it may be that.....
Judgment:

1. We are of opinion that the decree of the lower Court must be affirmed. The facts are that, on the 20th August 1912, the father of the present defendant, Bindeshri Prasad, executed a promissory-note in favour of the plaintiff for a certain sum.

2. At the time this promissory-note was executed the defendant's father was a ward of the Court of Wards and, consequently, it follows that the contract evidenced by this promissory-note was a void contract and that no debt resulted.

3. After the release of the estate from the Court of Wards and the death of the Defendant's father, the present defendant on the 19th August 1915 executed a bond for Rs. 3,000 in favour of the plaintiff.

4. It is found that this sum of Rs. 3,000 was made up of Rs. 1,800 advanced at the time and that the balance, Rs. 1,200, represented the sum which had been secured by the prom ssory-note executed by the defendant's father.

5. The present suit was on this bond and the Courts below have decreed the claim. The argument in the Court below, as here, is that in no case can the plaintiff recover this sum of Rs. 1,200 on the ground that there was an unlawful consideration.

6. We think this plea cannot be maintained. We agree with the learned Judge of the Court below that the consideration so far as it concerns this sun of Rs. 1,200 was not an unlawful consideration within the meaning of Section 23 of the Contract Act.

7. Further, it cannot, we think, be argued that there was no consideration for the bond so as to bring the case within the purview of Section 25. It may be that there was no existing debt in respect of this sum of Rs. 1,200, but the fact remains that under this bond an advance of Rs. 1,800 was made to the defendant and that there was, therefore, real consideration for the bond. The Court below findshtat the plaintiff would not have advanced RS. 1,800 without the undertaking of the defendant to pay the money which had been advanced to his father.

8. We are not concerned with the adequacy of the consideration. That is not a matter which has to be taken into account in considering a question of this kind (see Explanation 2 to Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act). The decree of the Court below is correct. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs including fees in this Court in the higher scale.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //