Skip to content


(Chitturi) Sriramulu Vs. (Somisetti) Lakshminarayana - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad1102a
Appellant(Chitturi) Sriramulu
Respondent(Somisetti) Lakshminarayana
Excerpt:
- - 1. i am satisfied that the decree of the lower court cannot stand. 3. i am satisfied that plaintiff cannot enforce the promise, which was wholly without consideration from defendant personally or from pallamma his principal......evidence is that defendant was in possession of some of pallamma's property, as agent, and, as her agent, promised to carry out her instruction to pay rs. 50 to plaintiff. but, on this footing, it is clear that when the promise to give could not, in law, be enforced against the principal, it cannot be enforced against the agent.2. plaintiff urges that there was consideration for the promise fixing liability on the defendant personally, arguing that defendant was made a legatee under the will only in consideration of his promise to pay rs 50 to plaintiff. nothing of this kind is suggested in the plaint nor is it really within the bounds of probability that pallamma would not have executed the will in his favour unless he paid rs, 50 to a carpenter of hers.3. i am satisfied that plaintiff.....
Judgment:

Wallace, J.

1. I am satisfied that the decree of the lower Court cannot stand. It is clear that the gift to plaintiff is, not contained in the will. Therefore, defendant was not, in his capacity as executor, bound to carry out Pallamma's promise to give. The plaintiff's case as given in the evidence is that defendant was in possession of some of Pallamma's property, as agent, and, as her agent, promised to carry out her instruction to pay Rs. 50 to plaintiff. But, on this footing, it is clear that when the promise to give could not, in law, be enforced against the principal, it cannot be enforced against the agent.

2. Plaintiff urges that there was consideration for the promise fixing liability on the defendant personally, arguing that defendant was made a legatee under the will only in consideration of his promise to pay Rs 50 to plaintiff. Nothing of this kind is suggested in the plaint nor is it really within the bounds of probability that Pallamma would not have executed the will in his favour unless he paid Rs, 50 to a carpenter of hers.

3. I am satisfied that plaintiff cannot enforce the promise, which was wholly without consideration from defendant personally or from Pallamma his principal.

4. I reverse the decree of the lower Court and dismiss the plaintiff's suit with costs here. Each party will pay his own costs in the lower Court.


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