What was the key legal question?

Whether the plaintiff could sue on the promise even though consideration moved from the defendant’s mother, not from the plaintiff.

What rule did the Court apply?

Under Section 2(d) of the Indian Contract Act, consideration may move from the promisee or any other person. It need not flow from the plaintiff.

Who won the case and why?

The plaintiff won. The Court held she could enforce the promise because valid consideration existed—though supplied by a third party.

What is the simple takeaway for students?

In India, a stranger to the consideration can sue if they are a party to the contract; consideration may come from someone else.

Chinnaya v. Venkataramaya

(1881) ILR 4 Madras 137 — Consideration from a Third Party • Section 2(d) ICA

Madras High Court 1881 ILR 4 Mad 137 Contract • Consideration ~6 min India

Author: Gulzar Hashmi • Published: 26 Oct 2025

Quick Summary

A lady gifted land to her daughter (the defendant) on the condition that the daughter would pay ₹653 every year to the lady’s sister (the plaintiff). The daughter signed a separate promise to pay, but later refused. The Court held that the plaintiff could sue because, under Section 2(d), Indian Contract Act, consideration may move from any person—not only from the promisee. The promise was enforceable.

```

Issues

Can the plaintiff sue to recover the annual amount even though the consideration came from the defendant’s mother?

Rules

Section 2(d), Indian Contract Act, 1872: Consideration may move from the promisee or any other person. It is enough that consideration exists, whoever provides it.
Where a donee accepts a gift with an attached obligation and separately promises to perform it, that undertaking is binding if supported by consideration (even if supplied by a third party).

India follows the “stranger to consideration may sue” principle, if they are a party to the contract.

Facts — Timeline

Gift → Promise → Default → Suit

9 Apr 1877: Defendant’s mother gifts land to the defendant by a registered deed, subject to a charge: pay ₹653 yearly to her sister (plaintiff).

Same day: Defendant signs an Iqrarnama in favour of the plaintiff, promising to pay the annual amount.

Default: Defendant fails to pay as promised.

Suit filed: Plaintiff sues to recover the yearly payment.

Held: Plaintiff can sue; consideration validly moved from a third party (the mother).

Timeline: gift with condition, promise to pay, default, and lawsuit

Arguments

Plaintiff

Promise to pay ₹653 was clear and written.
Gift deed supplied consideration; third-party consideration is valid under Section 2(d).
Therefore, defendant is bound to pay.

Defendant

Consideration did not move from plaintiff; claim not maintainable.
Gift condition should not create enforceable liability in plaintiff’s favour.

Judgment

For the Plaintiff

The Court upheld the plaintiff’s right to recover. Consideration came from the mother’s gift, accepted along with the condition to pay the plaintiff. Since Section 2(d) ICA allows consideration to move from any person, the plaintiff could sue on the promise.

Judgment concept: third-party consideration binds the promisor

Ratio (Legal Principle)

In India, consideration need not move from the promisee. If valid consideration is provided by any person, and the promisor agreed, the promise is enforceable by the promisee.

Why It Matters

Clarifies India’s stance: stranger to consideration can sue if a party to the contract.
Helps draft family/property arrangements where obligations benefit third parties.
Supports enforcement of conditional gifts and settlement terms.

Key Takeaways

Section 2(d): Consideration may move from any person.
Donee accepting a gift with conditions is bound by those conditions.
Third-party beneficiary (if a contracting party) can sue on the promise.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “ANY PERSON, VALID PROMISE.”

Spot the Promise: Who undertook to pay/do?
Find Consideration: From promisee or any other person?
Enforce: If consideration exists, promise binds the promisor.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Can the plaintiff sue when consideration moved from the defendant’s mother?

Rule

Section 2(d) ICA: consideration may move from any person; it need not come from the promisee.

Application

Gifted land with a payment condition supplied consideration; defendant accepted and separately promised to pay the plaintiff.

Conclusion

Promise enforceable; plaintiff may recover the annual sum.

Glossary

Consideration: The price of a promise—benefit to one side or detriment to the other; in India, it may come from any person.
Iqrarnama: A written acknowledgment/promise, often used to record obligations.
Conditional Gift: A gift given with an attached obligation the donee agrees to perform.