Lalman Shukla v. Gouri Dutt
(Appeal was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court stating order of lower court was correct)
Bench: Justice Banerji
Issue:
- Is the decision passed by the subordinate court valid or not?
- Is the claim of Rs 499 of servant-cum-plaintiff from his master-cum-defendant valid or not?
- Whether a contract was entered between the plaintiff and defendant or not?
Facts:
- The defendant’s nephew absconded and nobody knew about his whereabouts.
- The defendant sent his servants to various places along with the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff was sent to Haridwar and was given some money for train fare and other essential expenses.
- Then the defendant issued hand bills offering Rs 501 to whoever finds his nephew.
- The plaintiff found nephew in Haridwar and wired it to the defendant.
- After plaintiffs return to Cawnpore, he was given two souvenirs and Rs 20 additionally and after that he never asked for any money and continued working
- After 6 months he was dismissed.
- Then the plaintiff brought the suit out of which the current application lies, claiming Rs 499 issued in hand bills.
- He alleged in his plaint that he was promised the reward money along with other things when he was sent to Haridwar but never received any of it.
- This allegation, however, has been found wrong as the hand bills were issued after the plaintiff left for Haridwar.
Appellants Contention:
The plaintiff contended before the court that he was able to locate the boy and has the right to claim the Rs 499 from the defendant as its his right, and he stands the order of the subordinate court. The plaintiff also relies on the Indian Contract Act, 1872; Section 8provides that performance of a condition of proposal is an acceptance of proposal and in the present case the condition was that the person who will find the missing child will be rewarded.
Respondents Contention:
The respondent contended that there was no contract between them as there was no acceptance to the offer and no assent to it. The plaintiff was already under an obligation to do what he did.
Also contended that his act in Haridwar was not in light of the hand bill but was a duty given to him by the defendant to trace the child.
Final Decision:
The court held that in the present case that claim cannot be regarded as one on the basis of contract. The plaintiff was in the service of defendant and as a servant he was sent to find the missing boy. It was his duty to find the boy, however, the act was not within the scope of his duty as munib, but his acceptance to go to Haridwar and find the boy; this act came into the bounds of his duty. Since, he undertook the job before the reward was offered, he was already under the obligation to find the boy which we cannot overlook.
On the above stated reason court considered the judgment of subordinate court valid and denied the application of plaintiff.
