1. Exhibit B is the contract that it was proposed should be entered into between the Municipal Council and the contractor. It was signed by the contractor and was then forwarded to the Chairman by the Assistant Sanitary Engineer so that it might be signed by the Chairman or Vice-Chairman and one Councilor as required by Section 45, Act IV of 1884 (Madras). The document was however not so signed. The contract being of the value of above Rs. 200 is not binding on the Council Radha Krishna Das v. The Municipal Board of Benares I.L.R. 27 All. 592. Our attention has been drawn to the decision in Abaji Sitaram v. Trimbak Municipality L.R. 8 A.C. 517, which however does not refer to or consider the authorities on which the Allahabad case proceeded. Under the decision in Young & Co. v. The Mayor and Corporation of Royal Leamington Spa I.L.R. 28 Bom. 66 it is clear that the Municipality cannot be rendered liable on the ground of executed consideration. The decision in Lawford v. The Billericay Rural Council L.R. (1903) 1 K.B. 73 is distinguishable from that at Young & Co. v. The Mayor and Corporation of Royal Leampigton Spa I.L.R. 28 Bom. 66 as the local body there dealt with was not governed by any statutory provision such as that to be found in the Public Health Act, 1875, Section 174. On the ground that the contract is not binding on the Municipality, this second appeal must be dismissed, but as this contention was not advanced in either of the lower Courts, we consider that both parties should pay their own costs throughout. The decree of the lower Appellate Court will be modified accordingly.