Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Datt
Background:
Plaintiff was the servant of the defendant and was sent to Haridwar to find the nephew of the defendant who was absconded from the house. The servant was able to find the missing child and was awarded two sovereigns and twenty rupees. Later on, after six months when he was dismissed from his work, he brought the suit against the master claiming Rs. 499 for the reward offered by the master under the handbills. An appeal is filed against the order of the subordinate court in the Allahabad High Court in order to provide a claim of Rs499 to the appellant.
Facts of the Case:
In the January 1913 defendant’s nephew has absconded from his house and in order to find his nephew he sent all his servants to find him. Plaintiff was one of the servants who were sent for the search. He was asked to go to the Haridwar from Cawnpore(Kanpur) and all the expense that was caused to him during the trip was duly paid. He found him in Rishikesh and informed the master regarding the same. He returned to the Cawnpore along with master’s nephew there he was rewarded with two sovereigns and twenty rupees. In the meantime when the plaintiff was in the search of the nephew, the defendant had announced the reward of Rs 501 whoever would trace the child and plaintiff was ignorant of this fact.
Later on, after six months he was dismissed from the office and then he brought the suit against his master stating that the master had promised to pay a reward to the person whoever would find the missing child. He alleged his master of not providing with the reward money for the specific performance of his promise.
Issues Dealt:
1. Whether the claim of Rs. 499 should be paid to the plaintiff?
2. Whether subordinate court’s decision was according to the general principles of law or not?
The contention of Both Parties:
Petitioner strongly contended that mere performance of the contract is enough to give rewards attached to that performance irrespective of the fact whether the person performing the act has its knowledge or not. He also argued that as per the section 8 of Indian Contract act, 1872, the performance of the condition of the proposal is the valid acceptance to that proposal and here in this case condition was that if any person would find the missing child would be given a reward and hence he should get the reward.
Defendant contended that the acceptance to the proposal is the basic element to make it a valid contract and the plaintiff was not aware of the proposal when it was made and hence without knowledge, it won’t make any contract between the parties. They also contended that the plaintiff should not get any reward as he was just fulfilling his duty as the servant.
Judgment:
It was held that knowledge and assent are essential for any agreement to become a valid contract and in the present case neither the plaintiff had any knowledge about the proposal nor any consent was given for the same. The Hon’ble Court also stated that the plaintiff was merely fulfilling his duties and obligations. So the appeal was dismissed and it was held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any reward.