MIRRIYALA CHINA SUBBARAIDU Vs. KALLARSU MAHADEVA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On the strength of the decision of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court in Ramaswami v. G. Rudrappa, AIR 1939 Mad 688 : 1939 Mad W N 464, the learned counsel for the appellant has contended that what Section 63 of the Contract Act permits is not an agreement to remit in future but an actual remission and that a promise to remit requires consideration in order to a binding contract.

(2.) Referring to this decision, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, consisting of B. K. Mukherjea J. , (as he then was) and Pal J., in Jitendra Chandra Roy v. S. N. Banerjee, AIR 1943 Cal 181 pointed out as follows : -

(3.) After considering Section 63 with the illustrations attached thereto, the learned Judges of the Calcutta High Court pointed out as follows :