Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Dutt, 1913 (Missing Boy's Case)
Follow Us
Subscribe
Home
Case Study

Lalman Shukla vs Gauri Dutt, 1913 (Missing Boy's Case)

Lalman Shukla v/s Gauri Dutta, 1913 (Missing Boy's Case), lalman vs guari dutta, lalman shukla, missing boy case, lalman vs guari dutt case study, lalman shukla vs gauri dutt, lalman shukla vs gauri datta, lalman shukla v. gauri dutt, lalman shukla vs guari dutta, lalman shukla, lalman vs gauri datta,

Case Citation:

In The Allahabad High Court

Civil R. No. - 10/1913

Lalman Shukla.......Petitioner

v/s

Gauri Dutta............Respondent

Coram: Justice Banerji

Facts of the Case

In this case, Lalman Shukla Vs Gauri Dutt, The defendant's nephew was absconded from his house. The defendant sent his servant to trace the boy. The defendant made an announcement that who will find his nephew will be awarded Rs. 499. The servant does not aware of the offer made by Gauri Dutt the defendant.

Later, the servant has found the boy and gives it back to his master. But, after some time the servant came to know about the reward announced by his master. Servant asked for a reward but the defendant ignored it.

Then, the servant filed suit claiming the reward before the Allahabad High Court.

Issues Raised

The plea of the plaintiff has been rejected in the lower court. Then the plaintiff filed a sue in the Allahabad High Court. The issues discussed in the case were as follows-

  1. Whether the current position forms a contract?
  2. Whether the claim of Rs. 499 be provided to the plaintiff or not?
  3. Whether the decision by the lower court was appropriate or not?

Judgment: Lalman Shukla vs Guari Dutta 

In Lalman Shukla v. Gauri Dutt case, the High Court observed that when a reward is announced the plaintiff has no knowledge about this. But, for a contract when there is an offer there should be an acceptance also. But, the plaintiff has no knowledge about it.

So, it was held that there is no acceptance of the offer made by the defendant, and there is no formation of a contract. Hence, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reward.

Further, the court held that the communication of a proposal is mandatory for a valid contract.

Post a Comment

Post a Comment