Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 789 views

    Lalman Shukla Vs Gauridatt

    Uploaded by

    Shivansh Tiwari SEC-A 2020
    1) The plaintiff, a servant of the defendant, searched for and found the defendant's missing nephew. The defendant had offered a Rs. 501 reward for finding the child, but did not inform the plaintiff. 2) The plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming the reward money. The lower court rejected the plaintiff's case. 3) On appeal, the High Court also ruled against the plaintiff. It found that a valid contract for the reward did not exist since the plaintiff was unaware of the offer and did not agree to those terms. As the servant was simply fulfilling his duties in finding the child, he had no right to claim the reward.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Lalman Shukla Vs Gauridatt

    Uploaded by

    Shivansh Tiwari SEC-A 2020
    789 views2 pages
    1) The plaintiff, a servant of the defendant, searched for and found the defendant's missing nephew. The defendant had offered a Rs. 501 reward for finding the child, but did not inform the plaintiff. 2) The plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming the reward money. The lower court rejected the plaintiff's case. 3) On appeal, the High Court also ruled against the plaintiff. It found that a valid contract for the reward did not exist since the plaintiff was unaware of the offer and did not agree to those terms. As the servant was simply fulfilling his duties in finding the child, he had no right to claim the reward.

    Original Title

    lalman shukla vs gauridatt

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    1) The plaintiff, a servant of the defendant, searched for and found the defendant's missing nephew. The defendant had offered a Rs. 501 reward for finding the child, but did not inform the plaintiff. 2) The plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming the reward money. The lower court rejected the plaintiff's case. 3) On appeal, the High Court also ruled against the plaintiff. It found that a valid contract for the reward did not exist since the plaintiff was unaware of the offer and did not agree to those terms. As the servant was simply fulfilling his duties in finding the child, he had no right to claim the reward.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    789 views2 pages

    Lalman Shukla Vs Gauridatt

    Uploaded by

    Shivansh Tiwari SEC-A 2020
    1) The plaintiff, a servant of the defendant, searched for and found the defendant's missing nephew. The defendant had offered a Rs. 501 reward for finding the child, but did not inform the plaintiff. 2) The plaintiff sued the defendant, claiming the reward money. The lower court rejected the plaintiff's case. 3) On appeal, the High Court also ruled against the plaintiff. It found that a valid contract for the reward did not exist since the plaintiff was unaware of the offer and did not agree to those terms. As the servant was simply fulfilling his duties in finding the child, he had no right to claim the reward.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Case : Lalman Shukla vs.

    Gauri Dutt,1913
    Facts: The defendant sent out his servant to different places in order to find his nephew who had
    been absconded from his house. Plaintiff was the servant who had been sent out to search for his
    master’s nephew. He was finally able to track down the lost child and for this accomplishment, he
    was given . While the searching was taking place, and the plaintiff was in search of the child, the
    defendant issued a reward of Rs 501 to the person who would successfully trace down the child and
    the plaintiff had no idea of this reward.

    After 6 months of the incident taking place, the plaintiff brought a suit against his master claiming
    the prize money of stating that it was promised by his master that whoever would find his child
    would be entitled to this reward. He alleged his master of not providing the reward for the specific
    performance of his promise.

    Issues: Initially the case was rejected by the lower court. The plaintiff then went on to file the
    case in the High court. The issues that were raised in the high court are listed below:

    1. If the decision of the lower court was valid.


    2. If there was a valid contract between the plaintiff and defendant and whether the plaintiff
    was competent to get the reward.

    Rules related to the case: 1. Section 2(a) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines
    proposal as follows-

    “When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to abstain from doing anything, with a
    view to obtaining the assent of that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal.”

    2.Section 2(b) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines a promise as follows-

    When the person to whom the offer is made signifies his assent thereto, the proposal is said to be
    accepted. A proposal when accepted becomes a promise.

    3.Section 2(h) of Indian Contract Act,1872 defines a contract as follows-

    “An agreement enforceable by law is a contract”

    4.Section 3 of the Indian Contract Act,1872 states that-

    “The proposal must be communicated to the person who is expected to accept the offer.

    Judgement: It was held by the High Court that the basic necessity is the knowledge and
    assent of a proposal in order to convert a proposal into an enforceable agreement and in the present
    case none of the criteria are being fulfilled as the plaintiff was not aware and there was no assent
    about the particular act. It was also laid down by the judge that at the time the plaintiff was just
    fulfilling his duties as a servant while he was tracing the boy. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed
    and it was decided by the court that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the reward for finding the
    missing child.
    Case : Lalman Shukla vs. Gauri Dutt,1913

    You might also like