Case Summary: Chinnaya vs. Ramayya

Court: Madras High Court

Full Case Name: Chinnaya V. Rammaya (1882)

Date Decided: 21^st October 1987

Citations: ILR (1876-82) 4 Mad 137

Judges: Innes J, Kindersley J

Appellant: Venkata Chinnaya

Respondent: Venkata RamayyaGaru

Facts: A lady granted/ gifted a property consisting of some land to her daughter (defendant) by a gift deed. The deed was registered to the proper authorities. One of the terms of the deed was that the daughter had to pay a sum of Rs.653 annually. Later the old lady died, and the defendant refused to pay the money the sister whom she had promised to pay so. And hence the plaintiff sued the defendant for the recovery of the same.

Issue: Whether the plaintiff can bring an action against the defendant for the amount promised in a contract where the consideration for such promise has been furnished by the mother of the defendant (plaintiff’s sister)?

Appellants argument: The consideration for getting the property was a promise to pay the amount annually to the plaintiff.

Respondents argument: The plaintiff was not a party to contract, hence was had no right to compel respondent for paying the promised amount.

Judgement: The Madras High Court held that in this agreement between the defendant and plaintiff the consideration has been furnished on behalf of the plaintiff (sister) by her own sister (respondents mother). Although the plaintiff was stranger to the consideration but since he was a party to the contract he could enforce the promise to the promisor, since under law, Consideration may be given by the promise or anyone on her behalf – vide section 2(D) of Indian Contract Act,1872.

Thus, consideration furnished by the old lady constitutes sufficient consideration for the plaintiff to sue the defendant on her promise.

Held, The sister was entitled to a decree for payment of the annual sum of money.

Conclusion:  In Indian Law, consideration may be given by the promise or any other person. In India, there is a possibility that consideration for the promise may move not from the promise but a third person, who is not a party to the contract, different from the English Law in which the consideration must move from only the promise.