Facts
- The plaintiffs‘ sister, by deed of gift on the 9th April 1877, made over certain landed property to the defendant, her daughter.
- By the terms of the deed which was registered, it was stipulated that an annuity of 653 rupees should be paid every year to the plaintiffs as had hitherto been paid by the donor until a village could be given them.
- The defendant on the same date executed in plaintiffs‘ favour a Kararnama promising to give effect to the stipulation of the deed of gift by paying the annuity until she gave them a village.
- The annuity was not paid and the plaintiffs sued to recover it.
Law Points
- Section 2 ( d) of India contract act 1872 − future consideration
- The Courts below have found, upon evidence warranting the finding, that there was no coercion, but that the document was executed and registered voluntarily by defendant.
Judgement
- Dutton V. Poole [ 2 Lev 2010 1 Ventr. 318]
- The son had the benefit of the timber & the daughter had lost her portion through the promise of son
- So she can sue for the contract between her father and brother.
- A consideration indirectly moved from plaintiffs to the defendant.
- Tweddle V. Atkinson [ 30 LJ QB 265]
- Prvity of contract
