BOMBAY SEEIEB.

■ 'W s thin-k also* that tlio Judge slioiiH liave raised issues as to m s:
•the Qwnersliip and possession botli of the p laintiiFs vendol' and CqviND
the* plaintiS; since even if the deed were not proved^ the p lain tiff - - .
Tratit,
might be aMis to siibetantiate a 'title iadepeEdently of it, and/ on
* the ■'S»ther hg^ndj if the deed were XMOTed^ it,w ould not necessarily
establish the title either- of his vendor or of himself*
We-r®verse tlie-decree and remand-the'appeal fo i a.fresh deci*'
iSion on the merits. Costs to be costs in the cause. . . ■
D e cre e reversed, a n d ecue sen t h'ac/i\

APP^ELLATE CIVIL..

Before thd Ilonourahla Chief‘JiistiGe Farran and Mr, Jmtics Parmua

'SINDH-A SHRI G A N P ^T Sm G JI HIMATSINGJI (oekjinai, Dbfbkdakx), ; 1885..
Appella.nt, V. ABRAHAM AZIAS V A JIR MAHOMED A K U JI (obigi* Seplemhf 2.
. KAIi PlrAINTIE*F), EeSPOITD^StA ‘ ■

' Contrmi- Act f l X of _1872^, Seos, 2 (<^), 2^ ^Services rendered ilurhlg Me de,fend'‘
ant^.s minority at Sesrvs'and ,co?ithmecl ai]?iis i.’s^'uesi after Ms
Arjreemeiit to comjjiemaiefor services^ConsiderctUon-Annuityi - ' ■ . . ■

Services reiidered at tlie desire of the minor espreasetl during lils .minority *,and
continued at flie same leq^uest affcor his majority forro a good consideration for a siiTao
se(iuenfc expi'ess promise tiy him in favour of the person who rendered fclie gerViceg^
By section 2 [d) of the, Coixtrkafc Act, services already rendered at. the desire o£ tha
psoniisoi are placed on the same footing with such se|vices to .he reudeiecl, and., oon? ,
stitute a good consideratipn. for a definite agreement. , '
Cases wlieie a peisoii witliont tho lino'vyledgo of the pi’omisor or otherwise than at
liis ref|nost does the latter some service and felio promisor Tindevtalccs to' compeusata
. him for it, are covered hy section 25 of the- Contract. Act*(IX of 1872) $ !n them the
promise does not need a consideration to support it. ' , «

SeGo5Td« appeal from the decision of S,, Tipnis^-Assi^nt

Jiiclge^ F. P., of Surat at Broaeh^ conflrmiiig the d e c r e e M o
^Stiheb EJarptirrrim M.j Subordinate Jndge of Janibiisar. /
Tho plaintiff sued to recover Rs. 025, being the- anio/ant of
years’*(LS82 to 188.6) arrears diiG-on a deed^ .dated fc|ie 6th June,
1875, J)y which the defendant agreed to pay hii|ji RsM25 per
annum in eonsideration of the •services rendered/ hy him. to' this
defendant Jn cGnnectioa with a suit ’V& ’hich thji _,j0fenfant had
* tSeeoiid Appeal, I894»
m _. .THE INDIAN LAW REPOBTB. ; [VOL.

f69g/, filed agamsfc liis faiiier to establish his legitimacy, and in fvhich
SiNBHA.SflEi' he^ the defendant, got a cTecree fpi* inaipitenauee. The. litigation
aA!^pA^sij?Qji aii for five years^ and during its continuance ih e defend-*
attained his m a jo rity .'
- The following is the translation o r 'a portion o f t h e d e e U in.
suit;—
“ Blnce the commiciicemont o£ this dispute and up to it3 cml, with great' cave and
properly yoil (plaintifl) liavo rcndesed me! much assisiiSince by living with lao (though)
it is difficult for nic to give (duoj return [for the as’aistanoe thus reiideted. hy living
hesitlQ iiie in timoa of such distress of uiiiio } ycb iu order that you inay have recom­
pense for your trouble, and that you may rcmembot rae for ever (may h%vQ something
to remember mo for), do I paaa you this deed (to wit) ■when, (it will please) Gotl to*
make toe the owner o f the gdeli of Saiodj i . e „ whou God .will insial me iii the g M i
of Sarod from that year will I continue paying Rs, 125, in., w*ords one'hundred and
tweiity-fivc, a year as long aa there are you.r and my issues (during the life-time-of my
i8suc8__a^d yours.) ” , ' ' . .

The defendant replied that the agreement was void on the

ground of fraud, undue influence and misrepresentation j that--#r»
was* -without consideratvoiT and oppo,^d It) public p olicy rthat the ‘
right to sue had not yet accrued, because his estate was in th e .
hands of the t^IuM ari settleme9.t. officer, and that the agwemenfc
waa oppressive. , ’
The Subordinate Judge had at first dismissed the suit on the
ground that it was premature^ because the defendant's estate was
in the naanagoraent of the tdlukd/iri settlement officer, but* on
remand on appeal he allowed the claim•
On appeal by the defendant the Distriet Judge Qouilrmed tho
'decree, ' , . ■
The defendant preferred a second appeal. ,,
--^merarity (with Kdldhhai Ijalluhhdi) appeared fo r the appel-
!an^4efendant) : ^ W g contend that the agreement is not bind«
ing on It has no consideration. The document purports to
have beei. executed for past services w hich, w o submit, do n6t ■
form a vali4 consideration—Pollock on Contracts, pp. 168, i69.
MotiUl appeared for the i^'espondent (plaintiff)
U nder the *Coj^tract A ct past services form a g o o d , considera»
tion^section 2 ; tv^ause (cZ) o f the Contract Act. E ven supposing
that past s e r v i c e s 1^0 not form a good consideration, still.our claim '
can be 'supported u.nder section S5-of the Contract A ct. ’ ,|
• f OL, XX | BOMBAY SEBIES. rot

JFarean, C. J.— The history of this case is fully set out in the 1S95.
judgments of the lower Courts, which have- concurred in award­ SiSDH.'i. SHE.r
GAXPAl'SIJfGOT:
ing the claim. The point argued before us for the appellant is Vm
A brahak
that there was no legal consideration for the agreement sued on. ALTa S
3 ^ it the defendant promises to give the plaintiff an allowance of V ajjb.

Es. 125 a year, because during the whole of the five years’ litiga­
tion, whfch went on between his father and himselfj and in which
his legitimacy was questioned^ plaintiff rendered'him |reat assist­
ance and remained with him in times of distress. It was thus
distinctly an agreement to compensate for past services. These
services, were rendered to the defendant at first while ho was a
minor, and were subsequently continued aTter he had attained his
majority. There is no finding by the lower Courts wheljher they
were rendered at the desire of the defendant, but it is plain, from the
judgment of the District Judge, that he was of opinion that it was
not intended by the parties that the plaintiff’s services should bo
rendered gratuitousl5\ They were intended to be recompensed,
though the nature and extent of the proposed recompense were not
- fixed until the agreement now sued on was executed by the defend-
ant^ Hence we have not to consider whether a past action upon
request which the parties did not intend to create a eonttactual
Jural relation between them is a consideration* within the meaning
of the Contract Act. It may be op^n to question whether an act
done at another’s desire, which is not intended by either party to
create a contractual relation between them, such as joining a friend
in a walk or on an excursion at his request, can be considered a,
consideration for a binding promise. Mr. Anson thinks that it
could not. Unless ” (he says) “ the request is virtually an offer
of a promise, the precise extent' of which is hereafter to be as­
certained, or is so clearly made in contemjgation of a promise to be
given by the<inaker of the request that a subsequent promise may
be* regarded as part of the same transaction, the rule in lam ^leigJi
v. B m ith m m t has no application Anson, Principles of the
English Law of Contract, page 89. But the point does not arise
in this case. ’ • - .

Mr. Inverarity, for the appellant^ cited Pollock on Contracts,

page 169, ’(5th Ed.); as expressing the law founded upon decisions
in the English Courts which ^ught to govern tis in tho pre-
B 9 1 7 -8
758 THE IKDIA,N“ LAW REPORTS, ; [VOL. X X /

1S95. sent casG, ljui we are unable to accept tliat contention. The Oo-ii-
SiNDHA. Sum tract Act, tliougli in tho main foiindetl on English case law, does
GANPArSIN0JI
V. not follow, as pointed out by Mr, Cunningham in his work pn
A b b a it a m
the Act, the present English law. on the subject of consideration.
ALI AS
T ajir. W(? must turn to the Act it«elf. If the servieeR of tho plainti^
wore rendered at the desire of the defendant, expressed during
the defendant’s infancy and continued at the same reqiiCst after
his niajoi'itj", wc do not doubt that ihey form a good consideration
for the defendant s subsequent express promise to pay tho annuity
secured by the agreement. Services at the desire of tho promisor
already rendered and such service,s to he rendered are placed in
section 2 {d) upon the samo footing. Eitlicr will coftstitute a*
good consideration for a definite ngrocincnifc. If tho services' were
rendered without the desire of the defendant (and it is, we thlnkj
difficult to conceive in the’ ]3re,sent case that they were rendered
otherwise than at his express or implied ro(|uest or. desire) the
case falls within section 25 of the Act, Tho services will have
been voluntarily rendoa:cd for tlie defendant. Tlie section appears
to*cover cases where a person without tho knowledge of the pro-
raisor or otherwise than at his request does the latter some seryco
and«the promisor undertakes to recompense liim for it. In,such
cases the promise does not need a consideration to support it. A
.rather extreme application.o£. the section will be,found in Dldraj
K m r V, BilcrdmdjU >Singh^^\

The other grounds taken in the memo, of appeal have not been
pressed -upon us.

We confirm the decree with costs.

Decree confirmed, '

(1) I, L. 11., 3 An., p.