RESEARCH PROJECT

on
Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali AIR 1914 All. 22 A legal Glossary
Submitted to

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, AURANGABAD

Submitted by

SAMRIDDHI BAMMIDI

B. A.LL.B. (Hons.) Semester-II

Roll No. 2020/BALLB/75
Paper : Law of Contracts

Under the guidance of

Dr. Tanaya Tarai
OSD (Academics & Publications)

Maharashtra National Law University, Aurangabad

March, 2021

Page | 1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

SR.NO CHAPTER PAGE NO

1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 3

2 ABSTRACT 4

3 RESEARCH 4
METHODOLOGY AND
OBJECTIVES OF THE
PROJECT
4 LITERATURE REVIEW 5

5 CONSIDERATION & 6
ESSENTIALS OF A VALID
CONSIDERATION
6 FACTS OF THE CASE 7-8

7 ISSUES RAISED 9

8 ARGUMENTS 10-11
PRESENTED
9 JUDGEMENT 12-13
PRONOUNCED
13 CONCLUSION 14

14 BIBLIOGRAPHY 15

Page | 2
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to thank our Hon'ble Vice-Chancellor Prof. Dr. K. V. S.
Sarma for providing me an opportunity to do this research project.

I owe a debt of gratitude to my mentor Dr. Tanaya Tarai, OSD (Academics & Publications)
for her intensive support and helping me complete the project. She has always been
supportive in all my endeavours and I am grateful for her support.

I humbly thank my friends for their constant support and help whenever I was feeling low. It
is their inspiration that made me complete the project with precision. I would also like to
express my gratitude to my teachers, friends and my relatives for helping me and providing
me support, inspiration and encouragement throughout the study.

And lastly but not the least I thank my Lord and Saviour for helping me in every way
possible. He has been my strength and my supplier and his providence always helps me to
desire for more.

Page | 3
 ABSTRACT

This research project aims to study the case law Aziz v. Masum Ali, AIR 1914 ALL 22 in
detail, discuss its legal background briefly and also throws light on the issues raised in the
case. It also highlights the various arguments presented by both the parties in detail and the
judgement subsequently pronounced. Besides this, the project stresses on the major legal
takeaways from the said case law.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The research was done on the case law Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali, AIR 1914 ALL 22 and the
research design was descriptive in nature. As per the topic, qualitative data collection was
preferred and secondary data analysis was done. The collection of data will be done through
law reporters and digests, journal articles, books, online sources, case studies, etc. The mixed
method has been applied for the research i.e., Content Analysis Method and Case Study
Method.

OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

 To understand the role of ‘consideration’ in a contract and the essentials of a valid

consideration.
 To enhance the knowledge and understanding of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 in
relevance with the present case law.
 To get a clear understanding of the facts of the case Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali, AIR
1914 ALL 22
 To specify the major issues raised.
 To identify the various arguments made by both the parties in the case.
 To study the judgement of the case in detail.
 To identify the major takeaways from the case in this regard.

Page | 4
 LITERATURE REVIEW

Indian Contract Act, 1872 by R. K. Bangia gives the legitimate structure to definition of
trade, business and commercial transactions. It explains the role of valid ‘consideration’ in a
contract and also throws light on the essentials of a valid consideration. The case at hand
deals with the subscription for a charitable purpose for which, understanding consideration is
crucial.

‘Law of Contract & Specific Relief’ by Avatar Singh is another masterpiece in Indian books
on Contract Law. This book was been referred to better understand the nuances of
consideration in a contract and the fundamental conditions that need to be fulfilled for a valid
consideration.

The case in question Aziz v. Masum Ali, AIR 1914 ALL 22 has been extensively researched
and has been studied in detail so as to analyse the facts of the case, the important issues
raised, the arguments put forward and the judgement thereafter delivered. The case has been
referred from and studies from numerous reporting sources including SCC online, Casemine
so that every detail is covered. The case Kedar Nath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed has also
been referred during the course of this research analysis and provides a wider scope of
understanding the present case.

Other than the above mentioned literary sources, numerous other online journals and websites
have been utilized to prepare this research project and present a holistic understanding of the
case.

Page | 5
Page | 6
 WHAT IS CONSIDERATION?

Section 2 (d) of the Contact Act 1872 characterizes consideration as " When at the desire of
the promisor, the promise or any other person has done or abstained from doing or does or
abstains from doing or promise to do or abstain from doing. Something such act or abstinence
or promise is called a consideration for the Promise."

FUNDAMENTALS OF VALID CONSIDERATION1

a. The consideration should move at the want of the promisor.

b. It may move from the promisee or some other individual.
c. It might be past, present or future.
d. Something-An act, abstinence or promise by the promise constitutes consideration.
e. Something- An act, abstinence or promise by the promise constitutes consideration.

Subscription for a charitable purpose :

A mere promise to contribute for a beneficent intention isn't enforceable, since it lacks valid
consideration.

Assuming, in any case, on the confidence of the guarantee, some liability is incurred by the
promise, at that point the guarantee is enforceable.

1
R.K. Bangia, Indian Contract Act: Consideration, 460-65, (14th Edition, 2009), Allahbad law agency
Allahabad.
Page | 7
 FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The appellants are the individuals from the lslam Local Agency Committee, Agra.

2. Apparently in the year 1907, a development was determined to foot to gather cash for
fixing and recreating a mosque known as Masjid Hamman Alawardi Khan.

3. The neighborhood organization advisory group themselves endorsed a membership of Rs.

3,000; other than this sum, Rs. 100 were paid in real money around then by Hakim Shafi
Ullah, 500 were guaranteed by Munshi Abdul Karim and another amount of Rs. 500 was
guaranteed by Munshi Jan Mohammad.

4. Munshi Abdul Karim was delegated financier (treasurer)

5. The neighborhood organization panel gave over their commitment of Rs, 3,000 to Munshi
Abdul Karim and he additionally got Rs. 100 from Hakim Shafi Ullah.

6. Munshi Jan Mohammad gave a for Rs500 dated twelfth September 1907.

7. On 29th September 1907, the cheque was introduced for instalment, however it was
returned by the Bank with a note that the underwriting was not standard.

8. It was again introduced on twelfth January 1909 when the bank restored the with a note
that it was outdated.

9. Munshi Abdul Karim passed away on twentieth April 1909; the current was initiated
against his beneficiaries on fourteenth April 1910.

Page | 8
10. Munshi Jan Mohammad died in May 1910.

11. This was brought against the beneficiaries of Hafiz Abdul Karim for the recuperation of
Rs. 1000, that is, Rs 500 guaranteed by him, and Rs 500, the sum for which Jan Mohammad
had paid a which was not liquidated.

12. The court made the beneficiaries responsible for Rs. 1000.

13. This is Second Appeal from an announcement of H.M. Amith, District of Agra, dated the
seventh September, 1912, adjusting a pronouncement of Subordinate , dated the 26th
September, 1910.2

2
Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali AIR 1914 All. 22.

Page | 9
 ISSUES RAISED

I. Is a promise without consideration enforceable in a court of law?

II. Whether the beneficiaries of Munshi Abdul Karim are responsible for negligence?

Page | 10
 ARGUMENTS PRESENTED IN THE CASE

I.

As per the first issue, it was fought for the appellants that the cash guaranteed by the financial
officer was not past the phase of promise.

2. He had sufficient cash with him yet had not moved that from his private record.

3. No obligation was caused on the strength of the guarantee/promise.

4. Sir Fredrick Pollock condemning Kedar Nath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed 3 , the
offended party expressed that no inquiry would emerge if the advisory group had not done
anything in compatibility of a guarantee.

5. To this, the respondents expressed that the guarantee was made by the financier himself.

6. They expressed that Mr. Hafiz had the aim of paying as his name showed up in the
rundown of endorsers arranged and he would not do an unmistakable demonstration to stamp
the instalment.

II.

7. As respects to the 2ndissue, it was battled for the appellants that the beneficiaries of the
financier are to be held responsible just on the off chance that they had profited by the
disregard in the gathering the check.

3
Kedar Nath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed (1886) I.L.R, 14 Calc. 64.

Page | 11
8. He was unable to be held at risk as a specialist, as he is a privileged financier.

9. Regardless of whether he could be treated as agent, he would be a gratuitous agent

10. Neither he nor his beneficiaries will be held responsible as the rule of activity personalis
moritur cum persona expresses that an action is considered personal and ends with the death
of the person.

11. The respondents expressed that the board endured a loss through the carelessness of Hafiz
paid by means of check was sketchy on the off chance that he had been alive.

12. Being an agent, he needed to realize the cash and spend it on a specific reason and he
would be made liable if he were acting as a gratuitous agent4.

11. They expressed that he was selected as an agent and embraced to accomplish the work
and was an instance of gross negligence, wherein he had the panel under the feeling that cash
had been figured out.

4
Pallock on the Indian Contract Act, page 563.

Page | 12
 JUDGEMENT DELIVERED IN THE CASE

It appears to the court that the suit can't be kept up in regard of both of the issues:

1. With respect to the membership of Munshi Abdul Karim, it was a simple unwarranted
guarantee on his part.

2. The situation being what it is of the current case it is conceded that if the guarantee had
been made by a stranger to the contract it couldn't have been upheld.

3. We can't see that it has any effect that Munshi Abdul Karim was himself the financial
officer.

4. There is no proof that he at any point put aside an amount of Rs. 500 to meet his
guaranteed membership/promise.

5. Regarding the other thing that is the measure of Munshi Jan Mohammad's check, there is
an incredible trouble in holding that a suit might have been brought against Munshi Abdul
Karim in regard of this check during his lifetime.

6. His endeavor of the workplace of financier was absolutely unwarranted.

7. In the assessment of the court Munshi Abdul Karim can't be said to have been a agent of
the advisory group; regardless of whether he was, it is extremely suspicious that he might
have been held liable of gross carelessness/negligence.

Page | 13
8. He had introduced the check for installment; the slip-up in the support was a characteristic
one and the deferral in addressing the check or getting a copy from the cabinet likely could be
clarified by the delay which occurred in doing the proposed work.

9. The situation being what it is of the current case, Munshi Abdul Karim couldn't have been
sued in the course of his life

10. It is very evident that if no suit lay against Munshi Abdul Karim while he was alive, it
cant be brought after his demise against his beneficiaries.

11. Appeal is permitted to the degree that that the court changes with the declaration of the
Court underneath, dismissing the case in regard of the two things of Rs. 500 each.

12. The appellants will get their expenses of this appeal inclusive of this court charges on the
higher scale.

13. In the Court beneath, the parties will pay and get the expenses in relation to failure and
success.

14. Appeal permitted and Decree varied.

Page | 14
 CONCLUSION

 Simple promise to contribute for a charitable reason isn't enforceable, for what it's
lacking a valid consideration.

 Assuming, notwithstanding, on the confidence of the guarantee/promise, some

liability is undertaken by the promisee, at that point the guarantee is enforceable.

 Along these lines, if A vows to give Rs. 500 for the maintenance and so forth of a
mosque, yet nothing is done in this regard; A can't be made responsible to pay. (Abdul
Aziz v. Masum Ali) 5

 Yet, if suppose A vows to pay Rs.100 towards the costs for the development of
Campus Hall in Delhi, and on the confidence of such guarantee, the development
work is begun. A can be made responsible in the future to pay the total amount
guaranteed by him. (Kedar Nath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed)6

5
Supra note (2).
6
Supra note (3).

Page | 15
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abdul Aziz v. Masum Ali , 22 (Allahbad High Court March 11, 1914).

Ahuja, U. (2019). Abdul Aziz vs. Masum Ali. Law Times Journal.

Consideration. (2018). In R. Bangia, Indian Contract Act (pp. 460-465). ALLAHABAD

LAW AGENCY.

Kedar Nath Bhattacharji v. Gorie Mahomed, 479 (Madras High Court November 6, 1917).

Pallock, M. (2018). The Indian Contract Act. LexiNexis.

Singh, A. (2017). Law of CONTRACT & Specific Relief . Eastern Book Co. (EBC). Retrieved
from Casemine.

Wordpress. (2017, June 25).

Page | 16