Bharathi, by a deed of gift made over certain property to her daughter, Narmadha, and directing her to pay an annuity to the donor's brother, Ram, as she had promised her brother Ram before gifting the said property. On

The facts of the given situation are similar to the facts of the case Chinnaya v. Ramaya, (1882) 4 Mad. 137. In this case, a lady by a deed of gift made over certain property to her daughter directing her to pay an annuity to the donor's brother as had been done by the donor herself before she gifted the property. On the same day, her daughter executed in writing in favour of the donor's brother agreeing to pay the annuity. Afterwards the donee (the daughter) declined to fulfil her promise to pay her uncle saying that no consideration had moved from him. The Court, however, held that the uncle could sue even though no part of the consideration received by his niece moved from him. The consideration from her mother was sufficient consideration. In view of this case, it can be said that the contention of Narmada is not tenable. In the cited case, the Court held that the uncle could sue even though no part of the consideration received by his niece moved from him. The consideration from her mother was sufficient consideration. Unlike under English law, in India, privity of consideration is not strictly applicable. It means that consideration may be paid by parties or any other person.