Kedar Nath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mohamed

Facts

Subscriptions were raised to build a town hall at Howrah. Once enough was promised, the commissioners engaged a contractor and incurred liability for the construction, the budget rising from Rs 26,000 to Rs 40,000. A subscriber who had promised Rs 100 refused to pay, and the trust sued to recover the amount.

Issues

• Is a promise to subscribe to a charitable purpose enforceable for want of consideration?
• Did the trust's undertaking of liability on the faith of the subscription supply consideration?

Arguments

The trust argued that, relying on the subscriptions, it had entered a contract and incurred liability to the contractor, which was the consideration for the subscriber's promise. The subscriber argued a promise to donate to a charitable object is gratuitous and unenforceable for lack of consideration.

Held

The court held that a mere promise to subscribe to charity is generally unenforceable, but here the position differed: subscribers knew the money was to fund the construction and that, on the faith of the subscriptions, the trust would incur an obligation to the contractor. The subscriber's promise therefore meant 'in consideration of your incurring liability to build, I will pay my subscription.' That undertaking of liability was good consideration, and the subscriber was bound to pay Rs 100.

Ratio decidendi

A promise to contribute to a charitable subscription is enforceable where the promisee, relying on the promise, undertakes a definite liability; that detriment supplies the consideration that makes the subscriber's promise binding.

Significance

The leading Indian authority on enforceability of charitable subscriptions, distinguishing bare donations (no consideration, cf. Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali; A. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar) from subscriptions relied upon to incur liability.

Related