About the Author
Ananditha SR is a 2nd year student of Govt Law College Thiruvananthapuram.she is a member of Munsiff Magistrate Exam training program.
Facts of the Case
’A’ promises to obtain ’B’ employment in public service and ’B’ promises to pay Rs 1000/- to A . B secures the employment but fails to pay Rs 1,000/- to A.
Issues
Is there a valid contract between A & B ?
Whether A can recover money from B?
Law involved
Section 2(h) of the Indian Contract Act defines Contract as “An agreement enforceable by law”.
Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act states that all agreements which are made with (1) free consent of parties (2) Competent parties (3) lawful consideration (4) lawful object (5) and not hereby expressly declared to be void by any law he is subject to але said to a void Contract.
Section 2 (d) of the Indian Contract Act defines consideration. When at the desire of of the promiser, the promise or any other person has done or abstained from doing something, does or
abstains from doing something, promises to do or abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence is called consideration for the promise.
Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act states what considerations are lawful and what not. The consideration or object of lawful, unless (1) it is forbidden by law, or (2) is of such a nature that if
permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law or (3) is fraudulent or (4) implies or involves injury to the person or property or (5) the court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy.
In this particular case agreement between A and B is to sell a public office . Such an agreement is against public policy. When there is sale of public office , it is unlawful. Such agreements tend to corrupt public life as they are likely to interfere in the selection of properly qualified persons for
office and are therefore void. According to N.V.P. Pandian v. M N Roy, The respondent paid a sum of the appellant to obtain a seat in the college for the respondent’s son. The seat could not be obtained. He filed a suit to reimburse the money paid. Court held that the agreement tended to injure public Service and was against public policy and therefore, the same was void. According to, Ratanchand v. Askar, On the death of the Nawab of Hyderabad, dispute regarding succession of his estate. The defendant was one of the claimants but did not had the finance to purchase. He approached the plaintiff for assistance. The defendant agreed to pay back the (1/16) amount received from the estate. The agreement was held against public policy and therefore void. The plaintiff was not entitled to recover the money back.
Here in this case, it can be understood that the promise of A to obtain job for B is against public morality. There is unlawful consideration and therefore the agreement is void. A cannot claim the money promised by B. From the facts, issued analyzed and precedents cited it can be concluded that the agreement between A & B is void.
( Question from Munsiff Magistrate Exam 2022 Main paper)
