Facts
- The present respondents − the trustees entered into a contract for the necessary repairs in the month of February 1928, and the  maistry of the contractor was supplied with money from village common fund.
- As the work proceeded more money was required, and to raise this money subscriptions were invited and a subscription list formed. This was in October.
- The present petitioner put himself down in the list for Rs. 125, and it is to recover this sum that the suit was filed.
Law Points
The lower Court has decreed the suit. The plaint founds the consideration for this promise as follows:
- That plaintiffs relying on the promise from the subscriber incurred liabilities in repairing the temple. The question is, does this amount to consideration? The definition of consideration in the Indian Contract Act is that where at the desire of the promisor the promisee has done or abstained from doing something, such acts or abstinence is called consideration.
- Therefore, the definition postulates that the promisee must have acted on something amounting to more than a bare promise. There must be some bargain between them in respect of which the consideration has been given.
Judgement
- It is not pleaded, nor is there evidence, that there was any request by the subscriber when he put his name in the list for Rs. 125 to the plaintiffs to do the temple repairs or that there was any undertaking by them to do anything
- Bare promise unsupported by consideration
