a c t i o l .

defendant
and
the
piu
and
that is e n o u g l

defendant.
uise
mother

a n d the has entered

A has entered
to a contract.
defendant's

noticed hat A
that Contr
the
plaintiffs
been coon
nssi
id
to
to
de
er
B,, bu
ra
atti
ioon
between

above
case
it has
n o t given any
c

to R
but the
n

In the himself
has
third
third party, C B.
aco gh A Although A
with B, but A
b e e n given
by a the c o n t r a c t
enforce st B. Thisis
has still cone
c o n s i d e r a

to
t i o n

consideration,
he
u n d e r the
can

I n d i a n law
which permits
which p e r m i t s

other person.
onsideration
It mayo n tto
may be
stranger

of the by
rule
promisee
or any
consideration
noted
is
because
either by
the There the ist move
sideration cannot
different.
provided is to consideration
be the rule and a stranger
in England else),
that (and nobody
the promisee
from
maintain an action.
PRIVITY OF CONTRACT

that only those persons

means
contract
of privity of
A stranger to the cont
The doctrine enforce the same.

to the
contract can
contract may have been entero
red
are parties though the
a contract even
A and B some benefit has
cannot enforce contract between
benefit. If in a to enforce the
contract because
into for his file a suit
been conferred upon
X, X cannot whereas X 1S stranger to the
to the contract,
A and B are the only parties
contract. s u e has to be
distinguished
to contract cannot
The rule that a stranger who is stranger to
above that in India a person
discussed not have
from the rule noted above that a person may
has been
consideration c a n sue. It if he is a
enforce the contract
consideration but he c a n consideration
himself given any
because according to the Indian law,
party to the contract, or a third party. That does not affect
either by the promisee
may be given
contract.
the rule of privity of

English Law
held that only parties to the contract
In Tweddle v. Atkinson,5 it was
case the plaintiff, A
married a girl, B. ATter
can sue each other. In that B's
between A's father ana
this marriage there was contract in writing that A I
certain s u m of money to A and
father that each would pay a
have the power to sue for such sums. After the
death of the two fathers,
the
to recover
A brought an action against the executors of B's father
promised amount. It was held that A could not sue for the
same.
the
In the above stated case the plaintiff was both a stranger ha
the
contract as well as stranger to consideration and he could not entor
claim.
u s e o f Lord:
The rule of privity of contract was reaffirmed by t h e House o

8. (1861) 1 B. & S. 393.

 CONSIDERATION
65

an Pneumatic Tyre Co. Ltd. v. Selfridge & Co. Ltd" in the

i nD u n .

folowing
words
"In the law of gland certain principles are fundamental. One is
that only a person who is a party to a contract can sue on it. Our
law knows nonothingof a Jus quaesitum tertio arising by way of
contract. Such a right may be enforced by way of property, as for
example, under a trust, but cannot be conferred on a stranger to a
contract as a right to enforce the contract in personam."
Ta Dunlop's case the appellants (Dunlop Co.), who were manufacturers
f motor car tyres, sold some tyres to one Dew & Co. with an agreement
that these tyres will not be sold below the list price. Dew && Co. with
in their
turn sold some of these tyres to the respondents (Selfridge Co.), an
aCTeement between Dew & Co. and the respondents that the respondents
shall observe conditions as to price and the respondents also promised that
sold below
they would pay to the appellants a sum of £ 5 for every tyre
the list price. The respondents sold some tyres below the list price, and
the appellants brought an action against the respondents to recover

damages for the same.

The House of Lords held that Dunlop Co. could not bring an action
against Selfridge and Co. because there was no contract between the two
parties. It was further observed that even if it is taken that Dew & Co.
were acting as agents for Dunlop Co., the latter still cannot maintain an

action as there was no consideration between Dunlop Co., and Selfridge &
Co.,since the whole of the price was paid by Selfridge & Co. to
purchase
Dew& Co.
Indian Law
The rule that "privity of contract" is needed and a stranger to the
applicable in India as in England.
Contract cannot bring an action is equalyAct the definition of consideration
ven though under the Indian Contract the common law of privity
Wider than under the English law, yet with the effectprinciple
that only a party
Contract is generally applicable in India,
the same.0
b h e contract is entitled to enforce
In Jamna Das v. Ram Avtar," A had mortgaged some property to
B having agreed with A to pay off the
4 then sold this property to B,
A
an action against B to recover the mortgage
nortgage debt to X. X brought
Council that since there was no contract
noney. It was held by the Privyentorce
mo
the Contract to recover the amount
etween X and B, X could not
from B.
Painting out that the undertaking to pay back the mortgage money
being only by the purchaser or the property in avour of the vendor thereof
stated :"
Lord Macanaughtan
has no right to avail himself of that. He was no
The
he mortgagee
to
o
the sale. The purchaser entered into no contract with him,
chaser is not
personally bound to pay this
mortgage
853, per Lord Haldane.
9.(1915) A.C.
9. 84 at
A.C. 847, Thgore
Tugore Commercial Corporation
Corporution
Coimercial I.
Ltd., A.I.R. 1973 Cal. 401,
10. Narayani Devi
v.
at 405.
7.
(1911) 30 I.A.
.
12. Id., 9.
 INDIAN CONTRACT ACT
68

but if one of them by his conduct, acknowledgment, or admission ro.

the right of the other to sue him, he may be liable on the the basis
basis of s 7
of theognizes
law
of estoppel.
In Narayani Devi v. Tagore Commercial
Corporation
where there was no contract between the plaintiff and the defendantLtd.
the defendants in their agreement with the plaintiff's husband had ar but
to pay a certain amount to the plaintiff's husband greed
during his lifetime and
thereafter to the plaintiff, the question of the right of the
the defendants had arisen. It was established that the
plaintiff to sne
defendatns had made
certain payments to the plaintiff after her husband's
of the agreement, and had thereafter
death, in pursuance
asked for the extension of time to
pay. Apart from that it was found that the
had earlier called upon the defendants, by their admission
plaintiff to execute certain documents in this
connection, which implies that they considered the
to certain plaintiff to be entitled
rights. It was, therefore, held that the defendants
such privity with the had created
plaintiff by
by admission, that the plaintiff was
their conduct and by
acknowledgment and
was no
entitled to her action even though there
privity to contract between the
when the said contract plaintif and the two defendants.
was entered into.
iii) Provision for
arrangement marriage expenses or maintenance under
ran
Where, under a family
a benefit
to a third arrangement, the contract is intended to cure

Such an action has party, he may sue in his own Se

been allowed in right as a
bene
JOint family
property between the male many cases where, on the
the
maintenance members, par for
recognition
of the female
of such an members of the provision
a is mau
the
Khwaja Muhammad Khan action is the family. 'The bas1s
application of the rule laid ao* in
In
Veeramma
v.
Husaini Begum4 to such ns
house was to be Appayya,25 under a family
v.
situat
maintain him in conveyed to his
his lifetime. daughter arrangenment,underto
and the
the fathers
the ktook tot
compromise arrangement, it was daughter being a
The daughter unuear the
r the
specific performance in held that she was beneticiary ur the
In her favour. was entitled to
entitled sue for u
to sue
between Sundaraja
the male Aiyangar v.
members
for the marriage of the Lakshmiammal,26
of the family made the
partitlo ses
eed

plaintiff,
defendants, i.e., her father and brothers. She
Lakshmiammal, provision
a
brought
to be
an action
for the hthe the
pense

the agreement between contributed Drce

y
plaintiff was not a
the
defendants. It was held enfo
situation like t party to th ca that even thou