Sita, by a deed of gift made over certain property to her daughter, Gita, asked her to continue paying an annuity to her sister Mita, as she was doing that before she gifted the property to Gita. Gita accepted the condit

Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines consideration as, "when at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or promises to do or to abstain from doing something, such act or abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise" In English law, consideration must move from the promisee, so that a stranger to the consideration cannot sue on the contract. A person seeking to enforce a simple contract must prove in court that he himself has given the consideration in return for the promise he is seeking to enforce. However, in Indian law, consideration may move from the promisee or any other person, so that a stranger to the consideration may maintain a suit. ( Chinnaya v. Ramaiya, (1882) 4 Mad. 137 ) In the given situation, Sita had asked her daughter Gita to pay an annuity to her sister in return of the gift of certain property to her. Gita was also paying to Mita before this gift. When Sita died, Gita declined to pay Mita saying that no consideration had moved from her. In this situation, Mita could sue Gita even though no part of the consideration was received by her niece from her. The property transferred by the mother (Sita) was sufficient consideration. Therefore, in India, a promise is enforceable even if consideration moves from any person, not just the promisee. In view of the above discussion, Mita can recover annuity from Gita.