Case Analysis

Dorasamy Iyer vs Arunachala Ayyar

In this case there were plaintiff who was in the process of restoration of the temple; the
plaintiff had released the funds from the village common fund. After the contract with the
maistry, the fund is not sufficient so in order to raise money, plaintiff started to use the
subscription method and subscribing the trustees and then the defendant arrived and also
subscribed in the process. After that the defendant refused to give the amount of RS.125 as he
has subscribed then the case was held at the court where in the it was argued with the help of
the section 2(d) it is comes under the consideration. The plaintiff establishes the thought for
this trustees as pursues : That offended parties depending on the guarantee of the endorser
brought about liabilities in fixing the sanctuary. The inquiry is, does this add up to a thought ?
The meaning of thought in the Contract Act is that where at the craving of the promisor the
promisee has done or refused accomplishing something, such act or forbearance is called
thought. In this way, the definition hypothesizes that the promisee probably followed up on
something adding up to in excess of an uncovered guarantee. There must be some deal
between them in regard of which the thought has been given. In Kedarnath Battacharjee v.
Gorie Mohamed (1887) 14 Cal 64 at p. 67, the position is put along these lines:

The endorser by buying in his name says in effect.... In light of your consenting to go into an
agreement to rise or yourselves raising this structure, I attempt to supply the cash to pay for it
up to the sum for which I buy in by name....

Then it also refers to the other case, in the case of Hudson (1885) 54 LJ Ch 811. The
guarantee there was to contribute a substantial entirety of cash to the Congregational Union
for the instalment of Chapel obligations. The promisor paid an expansive portion of his
guaranteed commitment and afterward passed on. The Congregational Union at that point
tried to make the promisor s agents subject. The conflict was that on the quality of the
guarantee the Committee of the Union had caused liabilities and this added up to thought. It
was held that the case was unsustainable because of the fact that the promisee had not
embraced any risk as a feature of the deal with the promisor. Pearson, J., in his judgment
stated:

What is the thought for the guarantee which was to make it an agreement? There was no
thought by any stretch of the imagination. Mr. Cookson says that there truly was a thought, in
light of the fact that the thought was the dangers and liabilities which the gatherings were to
attempt that made them into a board of trustees and turned into the wholesalers of the reserve.
In any case there was no obligation among themselves and Mr. Hudson (the promisor) which
they embraced around then; there was no coupling commitment among themselves and Mr.
Hudson.

Then according to the Justice Cornish, he learned the facts and said that there was no proof of
that the subscribers have involved in the process of the contract and the consideration doesn’t
come in to the account in the case has it not be in the same as previous cases cited so there
will be no recovery of the amount was not allowed and the apple was dismissed in the High
Court. Where in the case the plaintiff was the one who said to the subscribers that the
restoration work was started and we are lack of fund and so indeed every one must have to
contribute for the restoration but the it looks like the work has started and that is still in the
progress which makes the defendant independent of the process of the subscription then that
is also been considered as the one of reason to be considered as the amount must not been
given as the subscribed amount to the plaintiff. From looking on the perspectives of one side
and the other side, the side of the plaintiff they were working on the restoration of the temple
the defendant had or may be considered to the process and that after the completion of the
process he is or not may be interested and from the defendant side it is that he is not willing
to pay the amount that he was considered and yet the opposition doesn’t have the proof that
he was in the subscription as if there is any written proof or there is the enrollement of the list
of the subscribers, then we can make him liable under the law so in the case there is the lack
of the evidences to prove that the defendant had subscribed to the process so they faild to
prove in the case, so the suit has dismissed in court.

By

Narayana M

BA0180025

BA.LLB(Hons).