1. The main question for decision in this appeal by a defendant against a decree for money is a question of law. It is whether the case falls within any of the recognised exceptions to the rule that a stranger to a contract cannot sue upon it even if it be clear that it was intented to benefit him.

2. By Ext. BI dated 311949, the defendant and Ms cousin, Raman the sole coparceners of a Hindu joint family governed by Mitakshara Law, entered into a partition of the family property worth over rupees two lakhs. The defendant had, at the time, four sisters, and Raman two, all married, and the plaintiff in the suit is the husband of one of the defendant's sisters, Lakshmikutty by name, who died in January 1953. In their partition the defendant and Raman agreed to pay Rs. 5,000/-to each of their sisters, and the relevant clause in the deed runs as follows:

'We have decided that from the tavazhi (branch) of executant No.1 (No.1 was Raman and he was the only member of his branch) his sisters, Sarada and Yesoda should be paid Rs. 5000/-each, and that from the tavazhi of executant No. 2 (Namely, the defendant who likewise was the only member of his branch) his sisters, Lekshmikutty,