'X', the father of a boy of marriageable age and 'Y' the father of a girl, who was to be married to boy, agreed that each of them shall pay a sum of money to the boy who was to take up the new responsibilities of married

Under both English and Indian law, a stranger to a contract cannot sue for want of privity of contract even though the contract is for his benefit. This situation is decided in the leading case of Tweddle v. Atkinson (1861) . In this case, the Court held that the suit was not maintainable as the boy was not a party to the contract. In the given case, the agreement was between 'X' (the boy's father) and 'Y' (the girl's father). The boy (husband) was not a party to this contract. Hence, the suit of the boy (husband) against the executor of his father-in-law in the Court of Law under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, is not maintainable.