Appellant relies upon the case Mara Ramanarasu v. Matta Venkata Reddi (56 Mad. 198 [LQ/MadHC/1932/94] = 36 L.W. 558) but in that case it is pointed out that the promise made by the judgment-debtor was consideration. Here a promise to pay only a part of what is legally due, can afford no consideration for any promise by the decree-holder. Appellant then relies on S. 63 of the Indian Contract Act and contends that no consideration is necessary. That is no doubt true if the decree-holder has actually remitted a portion of the debt due to him and not merely promised to remit it. Actual remission is not completed until he accepts the part payment in full satisfaction. (See illustrations (b)(c)(d) and (e) to the section). For an agreement to remit, consideration is necessary. See Balasundara Naicker v. Ranganatha Aiyar (53 Mad. 127 = 30 L.W. 293). The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.
Minor Ramaswami And Others v. Gurukar Rudrappa
Minor Ramaswami And Others v. Gurukar Rudrappa
(High Court Of Judicature At Madras)
Appeal Against Order No. 59 Of 1936 | 29-07-1938
Advocate List
Bench
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KING
- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE STODART
Eq Citations
- AIR 1938 MAD 688
- LQ/MadHC/1938/212
Head Note
Debt, Damages & Interest — Agreement to remit debt — Consideration for — Promise to pay only a part of what is legally due, affording no consideration — Actual remission not completed until decree-holder accepts part payment in full satisfaction — Indian Contract Act, 1872, S. 63
