PEERMUHAMMED PILLAI Vs. MICHAEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PLAINTIFF is the appellant. The suit is for damages for breach of contract. The defendants who are two in number were parishners of the St. Bartholomeo Roman Catholic Church, Poovar. The Parishners of that church are fishermen by profession. They used to give a portion of their daily catch to the Church. The amount so realised by the Church was used for its support and for the benefit of the members of the Parish. The right to collect the share of the church for the year 1125 was auctioned by the Church authorities and was bid by the plaintiff for Rs. 16,000. Thereafter 125 members of the parish including the defendants executed an udampady Ext. A in favour of the plaintiff on 9. 8. 1124. It is stated in Ext. A that out of the sum of Rs. 16,000 the plaintiff had already advanced Rs. 1,500. The balance amount of Rs. 14,500 was to be paid by the plaintiff in two instalments on the registered receipt of the first 21 executants of Ext. A. It was stipulated that the executants of the document and the other members of the Parish would give the plaintiff a specified portion of their daily catch in return for the amount advanced by the latter. The quota was fixed on the basis of the fishing materials used for fishing by the respective parishners. The executants of Ext. A agreed to be liable to the plaintiff for damages if any of them or the other parishners failed to give the plaintiff the quota as provided in the document. The plaintiff paid Rs. 12,000 out of the total amount of Rs. 16,000. The defendants and the other parishners paid their respective quota of fish till 20. 1. 1125. On 20. 1. 1125 the defendants and some others sent Ext. B notice to the plaintiff stating that they had seceded from the Roman Catholic Church and ceased to be parishners of the St. Bartholomeo Church and that therefore they were not willing to give the plaintiff the quota of fish they used to give. Accordingly the defendants ceased to give the plaintiff from 20. 1. 1125 the quota of fish they had agreed to give under Ext. A. The suit is brought for damages on that account.

(2.) DEFENDANTS 1 and 2 filed separate written statements. Their common contention is that they have seceded from the Roman Catholic church from 21. 1. 1125 and have ceased to be members of the St. Bartholomeo church, that it was only a voluntary contribution that they were giving the church, that neither the church nor the plaintiff can claim the same from them as of right, and that in any case after their secessation from the church they are not liable to pay any such contribution. The 2nd defendant further denied that he signed Ext. A. Both the defendants also contended that they were not using all the fishing materials mentioned in the plaint and that they are not in any event liable to give the quota of fish claimed in the plaint. The lower court found that the 2nd defendant also has signed Ext. A. But that court held that the customary contribution of fish which the parishners used to give the church was of the nature of a voluntary offering and that therefore the defendants are not under a legal obligation to give the same to the plaintiff. It was also held that it was as parishners of the church that the defendants and others had undertaken the liability to give the quota of fish to the plaintiff and that since the defendant have seceded from the church they are no longer liable to pay the same. It was further held that the "defendants have not entered into any agreement directly with him (plaintiff) and that there is no privity of contract between him and the defendants". Since the church has not, according to the lower court, "entered into some definite commitment on the strength of the promise of the defendants to pay the doles" it was held that the defendants were not liable to pay the plaintiff any amount. The suit was therefore dismissed with costs.

(3.) THE only further question is whether the agreement is supported by consideration. It is not denied by the defendants that a sum of rs. 12,000 was paid by the plaintiff out of the total consideration of Rs. 16,000. THE amount was paid on registered receipt as provided in Ext. A. It is therefore clear that the agrement is supported consideration. Such being the case Ext. A is a valid contract which can be enforced in a court of law.