Krishnan, J.

1. In this case the defendant bought in auction

the right to collect fees or tolls for slaughtering cattle in the slaughter-house of the plaintiff Corporation. This suit is for the balance money due from him. The suit has been dismissed by the lower Court on the ground that no written contract was executed as required by Section 45 of the old District Municipalities Act IV of 1884 which was in force. It is argued before me that though no claim could be made on the basis of the written contract a decree should have been given at any rate on the footing of executed consideration, the defendant having been found to have enjoyed the right of collecting the toll for the whole year.

2. There is no doubt a conflict of authority on the point. So far as the English Law is concerned it must now be taken as settled by Lawford v. Bellericay Rural Council (1903) 1 K.B. 772 in favour of such decrees being given. The learned Judges refer to Young and Co. v. Mayor etc., of Royal Leamington, Spa (1883) 8 A.C. 517 which was taken to have laid down the opposite view and point out that the question was expressly reserved there. In Douglass v. Rhyl Urban Council (1913) 2 Ch. 407 jayce