Promissory note consideration failed where litigation advances were made under an earlier financing undertaking, making the note unenforceable.

A promissory note was held unenforceable because the advances were made pursuant to an earlier undertaking to finance litigation, not at the respondent's independent desire. On those facts, the payments did not constitute consideration under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The Court also held that Section 25(2) did not apply, since the money was not advanced voluntarily in the statutory sense and the note did not record a valid promise to compensate for a voluntary act already done. The note therefore lacked lawful consideration and could not be enforced.

---

---

Issues: Whether the promissory note was supported by consideration under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and whether the prior advances for the litigation fell within the statutory exceptions relating to acts done at the desire of the promisor or a promise to compensate for voluntary acts.

Analysis: The advances were made pursuant to an earlier undertaking by the appellant's predecessor to finance the litigation and not at the respondent's independent desire. The respondent's requests for funds were only to implement that undertaking. The Court held that such advances therefore did not amount to consideration within Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The same factual findings also negatived the application of Section 25(2), because the money was not advanced voluntarily for the respondent in the statutory sense, and the promissory note did not record a valid promise to compensate for a voluntary act already done.

Conclusion: The promissory note was not supported by consideration and was unenforceable.

---