1. The plaintiff is the applicant is this case. He brought the suit in the Court of Small Causes at Muzifferpur for recovery of certain sums based upon a registered agreement executed in his favour on 29th April, 1911 by the defendant. By the agreement, the defendant agreed to pay Rs. 5 par mensem to the plaintiff for life, and the consideration for this agreement, as set forth in the document, is that the plaintiff got the executant trained in the art of singing and dancing at his own cost. The lower Court has held as a matter of fact that the plaintiff took no part in the teaching or the sheltering of the defendant and that the promise to pay him Rs. 5 per mensem for life is entirely gratuitous, and is therefore void. As the consideration of the agreement has failed according to the finding of the Court, the plaintiff has no cause of action and the suit has been rightly dismissed. No law or authority has been quoted on behalf of the applicant to show that the view taken by the Court below is wrong.
2. It is contended by the learned vakil for the appellant that, as the Court below has found that the sister of the plaintiff sheltered the defendant, brought her up, and engaged a teacher for her, the lower Court should have held that there was a valid consideration in the bond and should have decreed the plaintiff's suit. I do not see any substance in the contention. The contract was in consideration of a personal service said to have been rendered by the plaintiff. Whatever may have been her gratitude towards the sister of the plaintiff, the plaintiff himself did nothing for the defendant. Thera is no consideration for the contract and the defendant is not at all bound to pay anything to the plaintiff. I decline to interfere with the view taken by the lower Court. The application is dismissed with costs.
V.S/R.K
3. Application dismissed.
Comments