Durga Prasad vs Baldeo Case
⚖️ Durga Prasad v. Baldeo (1880) ILR 3 All 221
🔹 1. Background of the Case
This case deals with what amounts to valid consideration for a contract under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872.
Specifically, it examines whether a past act done voluntarily, without request, can be treated as valid consideration for a promise made later.
🔹 2. Facts of the Case
Durga Prasad, the plaintiff, constructed a market at his own expense in a town.
This market was built voluntarily, not at anyone’s request, and with the permission of the government.
Later, shopkeepers (including Baldeo) who benefited from the new market promised to pay Durga Prasad a commission on sales as a token of gratitude.
When Baldeo failed to pay, Durga Prasad sued to enforce the promise.
🔹 3. Legal Issue
Was the past voluntary act (building the market) a valid consideration for the later promise to pay?
🔹 4. Relevant Law – Section 2(d), Indian Contract Act
“When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing something... such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.”
👉 Key phrase: “At the desire of the promisor”
🔹 5. Judgment
The Allahabad High Court dismissed Durga Prasad’s claim.
It held that the act of building the market was not done at the desire of Baldeo or other shopkeepers.
Since consideration must move at the request or desire of the promisor, Durga Prasad's past voluntary act did not qualify as valid consideration.
Therefore, the promise to pay commission was unenforceable.
🔹 6. Legal Principle Established
“A voluntary act done without the request of the promisor cannot be treated as consideration for a subsequent promise.”
This case is often cited to clarify the meaning of “consideration” and the requirement that it must be at the desire of the promisor, not merely beneficial to them.
🔹 7. Application & Comparison
| Case | Consideration Valid? | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Durga Prasad v. Baldeo | ❌ No | Act was not done at promisor’s request |
| Kedarnath v. Gorie Mohammad | ✅ Yes | Promise to pay was made in response to an act done at promisor's request |
🔹 8. Conclusion
The Durga Prasad v. Baldeo case firmly establishes that:
For a promise to be enforceable under contract law,
The consideration must be something done at the desire of the promisor,
Even if the promisee incurred expense or the promisor benefited, it’s not enough if there was no request from the promisor.
RELATED Blog
0 comments