Durga Prasad VS Baldeo and Others (1881) ILR 3 Allahabad 221

BACKGROUND:-

Around 1882, Durga Prasad had set up a grain market in Etawah district at the behest of the collector there, and got him to rent the market, for this Durga established the rule of taking commission from some shopkeepers and this way Durga used to take one- third of the commission from the shopkeepers in the market, people felt that he should be recognized by the authorities. Gave because in 1864 the municipality has the right to take commission, but when the shopkeepers protested, in August 1864, the local government said it was illegal to take commission, then o 25 June 1875, an agreement was reached, Durga Prasad registered the application for the agreement, but some shopkeepers rejected it refused.

FACT OF THIS CASE:-

Durga Prasad built two grain markets in Etawah on the request of the District Collector of Etawah. The name of one was Hume Ganj and second was Ram Ganj. Durga spent a lot of money in purchasing land and building a shop. The Respondent rented a shop in this market. Durga established himself as a commission agent because he spent a lot of money in building the market. Therefore, appellant and the shopkeepers there deliberated and started giving 8 Annas commission to Durga, then with mutual consent in 1875, they started giving commission from 8 Annas to 6 Annas. On June 22, 1875, when the shopkeepers give commission, Durga wanted to register with the shopkeepers. But some shopkeepers refused, after which Durga Prasad filed a lawsuit his right.

ISSUES INVOLVED:-

In this case two main issues involved:-

• If the above said agreement constitutes a valid contract.
• If the above said agreement can be enforced by the law.

APPELLANT’S ARGUMENT:-

The appellant had argued that an annual amount was promised to be paid in order to receive the commission.

RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENT:-

The respondent argued that the appellant was not the type of contact, so he would not be compelled to fulfill the promise to the defendant.

JUDGMENT:-

The Session Court said citing Section 2 (d) of Indian Contract Act 1872, building Durga Prasad market to putting the shop on rent, they have faced  lot of trouble and have spent a lot of their own money and for that trouble and hard work, an agreement has been reached to pay the respondent a part of the fee. As Durga Prasad said but the court said  that the agreement was void because Durga Prasad has neither done nor was doing anything for the respondent, Durga Prasad has built a shop, so the collector who took 11 to 12 years to build the market. Obviously for the desire of the respondent, there would have been great difficulty in the making the market but it was not done for the pleasure of the district collector. The Session Court instance therefore annulled the decision and dismissed the lawsuit.

Then Durga Prasad appeal in Allahabad High Court.

The High Court said, it is not clear whether the expenditure incurred by Durga Prasad in making the market has been incurred for the respondent and the court observed that Durga Prasad was required to do so in order to bring it within the meaning of Section 25(2) of the Indian Contract Act 1872, has to be shown to prove that what was done by Durga Prasad was done for the promisor or for the sake of the promisor but the court did not find anything like this and the court said that appellant is not able to clearly show that the respondent. What he did for and the market he built was made to please the collector and not for the pleasure of the respondent because the respondent were not there at the time he was making the market, so the appellant was not compensated can be held and this case is dismissed with appeal.

CONCLUSION:-

In this case, the market was created through the appellant net and the respondent recognized the commission received as consideration, whereas the respondent argued that the commission paid to the appellant had nothing to do with the consideration. If there was no consideration, the contract was not valid and the respondent cannot be held liable to pay commission as the market was not even in the mid of the respondent, appellant at the time when the market was being made. This case based on Indian Contract Act, 1872.

REFERENCE:-

• www.simplekanoon.com
• www.legalserviceindia.com
• https://www.studocu.com
• http://student.manupatra.com

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

This article is written by Dhiraj Kumar Saw, student of University Law College Hazaribagh, (VBU) Jharkhand. Intern at Legal Vidhiya.

Admin