TMI Blog1948 (3) TMI 49X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Court in the light of Section 2, Clause (d), and Section 25, sub-s.' (2), of the Indian Contract Act (IX of 1872). 4. Section 2, Clause (d), of the Contract Act, in so far as it is material, is as follows: When at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or abstains from doing, something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise. 5. Section 25, Sub-section (2), is as follows: An agreement made without consideration is void unless: (2) it is a promise to compensate wholly or in part, a person who has already voluntarily done something for the promisor or something which the promisor was legally compellable to do. 6. Before stating the facts of the case, it will be advantageous to explain the relationship of the parties to the appeal, and also to summarise the events which have a bearing on the Gollaprole litigation, and the execution of the promissory note. These events date back as far as 1869. The following two pedigree tables will serve to illustrate the relationship of the parties to the appeal. Venkatagiri. K ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eversioners of her husband were Ramakrishna, and the Maharaja of Pittapur. 11. On January 27, 1914, she wrote to Ramakrishna asking him to consent to the adoption of the respondent. Before giving his consent Ramakrishna consulted the father of the first plaintiff, his eider brother, the then Maharajah of Venkatagiri. In the letter to Ramayamma giving his consent dated January 30, 1914, Rama-krishna stated . I have considered over it and obtained the advice of my elder brother.... I hereby give you my consent to take my son Krishnayya in adoption. 12. On January 29, 1914, i.e. the day previous to the above mentioned letter, Raja Gopala Krishna wrote to Ramakrishna a letter in which he said: Whether it be at the time of the issue of the notice by Vundur Ramayamma Guru to the Raja of Pittapuram informing him that she is taking your fourth son Sri Sri Krishnayya in adoption, and asking him for his consent, or whether it be after the adoption, if the Raja Guru of Pitta-puram were to file a suit against you in respect of the said adoption, and if either you or the said adopted boy should have to spend money in filing answer, etc. (written statement, etc.), we are ready to bear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... adhara Rama Rao and that the respondent's adoption was invalid. On appeal to the High Court by the defendants, the learned Judges of the bench who heard the appeal agreed that the Raja was the son of Gangadhara Rama Rao, but differed on the validity of the adoption. As a result of this disagreement, there was a Letters Patent Appeal to the High Court which was heard by three learned Judges two of whom held the adoption to be invalid while the third held that it was valid. The majority view prevailed, and the adoption was held invalid. Krishnayya Rao v. Raja of Pittapur (1928) I.L.R. 51 Mad. 893. The Letters Patent Appeal was decided on March 7, 1928. 19. Ramayamma had died in 1928. The respondents and Prakasa Rao to whom she had left her half share of the Gollaprole estate appealed to the Privy Council in 1929-30, against the decision of the High Court. They also contended that certain evidence relating to the parentage of the Maharajah was wrongly excluded. The Privy Council accepted this contention and remanded the case to High Court for further hearing. Krishnayya Rao v. Raja of Pittapur (1933) L.R. 60 I.A. 336 : S.C. 35 Bom. L.R. 1076. The case was then heard by three le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was called upon by the appellant to execute the suit promissory note. 23. On the same day that the promissory note was executed by the respondent the first plaintiff wrote to him the following letter: I received your promissory note of even date for rupees one lakh and fifty thousand (Rs. 1,50,000) only which you executed for amounts advanced by me from time to time for the expenses of the Gollaprole litigation. If the Gollaprole suit is decided against you in the Privy Council I shall not enforce your liability under the said pro-note. 24. It is not disputed that the expenses for the Gollaprole litigation were furnished by the appellant, and his predecessors. When demand was made for the money mentioned in the note after the successful termination of the appeal, the respondent denied his liability to pay by raising various contentions only one of which falls to be decided by the Board, viz. that relating to consideration . The respondent alleged that the suit note was void for want of consideration, as according to him the moneys were advanced to him, not as a loan, but in fulfilment of the promise made by appellant's grandfather to his father Ramakrishna by his le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erring to Section 25, Sub-section (2), of the Indian Contract Act, which was relied on by the appellant the learned Judges held that in signing the promissory note in suit the respondent was not promising to compensate the first plaintiff for something which had been done for him voluntarily and therefore the section did not apply to the facts of the case. This was the opinion of the trial Judge also. 28. The main argument before the Board elaborately urged by counsel of the appellant was that the learned Judges of the Courts in India have misconceived the effect of the letter of January 29, 1914, and erred in thinking that it created a legal enforceable obligation on the writer of the letter and his successors to finance gratuitously the respondent in the litigation between him and the Raja of Pittapur in all its stages. It was urged that the promissory note is prima facie supported by consideration, that the sum mentioned in it consisted of advances made from time to time at the request of the respondent, and that the undertaking contained in the letter of January 29, 1914, which it is said made it obligatory on the appellant to advance the money, is not supported by conside ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omised him to support. Facts show that other thoughts also must have been at work in his mind. As already stated, after obtaining for herself half of the Gollaprole Estate from the respondent, after his adoption Ramayamma and her relations executed on July 25, 1914, a mortgage of that estate to the first plaintiff to secure a loan of ₹ 2,50,000. The mortgage deed stated: For clearing the debts due by us to others, we have hypothecated to you the immoveable property scheduled hereunder and belonging to us and have borrowed from you Rs. '2,50,000 (Rs. two lakhs and fifty thousand in words.) As we owe you the said amount, we shall pay the same with interest accruing thereon at 4 per cent, (four rupees) per hundred per annum as per instalments hereundex. It is said that the language of the document connotes a contemporaneous advance of money and not a previous advance, but it is not stated that the loan was advanced that day, and as the learned judges of the High Court, who had also the advantage of examining the document, say, the language is not inconsistent with an earlier advance. Between July 25, 1914, and September 28, 1920, the Venkatagiri family advanced further ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... et out of his liability. Even so, no document was taken from the respondent till 1933, by which time most of the amount, if not all that was required for the litigation, must have been advanced by the appellant. It was stated that advances of money were made even after the execution of the promissory note, but it was candidly admitted that there was no document in the ease to support the statement. In their Lordships' opinion the whole conduct of the appellant and his predecessors is only consistent with the view that they must have felt that there was an obligation binding on the Venkatagiri family to finance the Gollaprole litigation from the beginning to its end. Indeed, the conduct of the appellant and his predecessors form an illuminating commentary of the binding nature of the letter of January 29, 1914. 30. Their Lordships do not think that the Courts in India have misconstrued the letter of January 29, 1914. It says in unmistakable terms If the Raja of Pittaparam were to file a suit against you in respect of the said adoption. if Vundur Ramayamma Garu does not advance moneys for the expenses of the case we shall without fail advance for expenses and have case conduc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . To invoke the aid of that provision it must be shown that there was a promise by the respondent to compensate the appellant or his father for something which had been already done by them voluntarily for him. The findings of the Courts which their Lordships have accepted show that the moneys which had been advanced were not advanced to the respondent voluntarily but because of the undertaking given by the Maharaja of Venkatagiri at the time of the adoption. They also show that in executing the promissory note the respondent was not promising to compensate the appellant for something which had been done for him voluntarily. It follows that the said promissory note is not supported by consideration ; that being so, the other contentions raised by the respondent need not be considered by the Board. 33. Before parting with the case their Lordships may point out that the trial Court expresses the opinion so it will be seen that the second plaintiff concedes that ₹ 1,27,508-11-5 expenses of this litigation are secured by mortgages from the Vundur family . These mortgages are B35 and B39. This point has not been considered by the High Court, and their Lordships do not pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
