Recognized exceptions to the rule that a stranger to a contract cannot sue upon it include family arrangements and trusts, and ties of natural love and affection play a significant role in creating a trust.

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, Madhavi, Meenakshi and Narayani should be paid Rs. 5,000/-each without the payment being charged on the properties of the respective tavazhis. Accordingly these sums shall be paid either in cash or in the shape of property from the concerned tavazhi within two years from this date without any interest, and receipts obtained. However, each tavazhi will be solely liable for the payments to be made from it and the other tavazhi will in no way be liable".

After his wife's death, the plaintiff brought the present suit for the recovery of the sum of Rs. 5000-due to her under Ext. BI, claiming under a will left by her. The defendant pleaded a partial discharge to the extent of Rs. 2000/-, and he also pleaded limitation. He contended that the promises in favour of the sisters were unsupported by consideration and that, in any case, Lekshmikutty, who was not a party to Ext. BI, had no right to sue upon it. He also disputed the plaintiff's claim under Lekshmikutty's will. The court below upheld the plea of discharge but rejected the remaining pleas, and it decreed the suit for Rs. 3000 -and the interest accrued thereon. As we have seen, the defendant has appealed. The plaintiff has filed no appeal; that the promises in favour of the sisters are supported by consideration though the consideration did not move from them, something which the Indian law does not require, is conceded; that the plaintiff who has obtained a succession certificate can recover money due to Ms deceased wife is no longer questioned; and hence the only questions that remain are the question to which I have already referred, and the question of limitation.

3. However much one might deplore with Denning, L. J. in Drive Yourself Hire Co. Ltd. v. Stratt (1953) 2 All E. R.1475 at page 1482) that the rule deduced from "the unfortunate case" of Tweddle v. Atkinson (121 E. R.762) a case decided in 181, namely, that a stranger to a contract cannot sue upon it, should have been allowed to muddy the clear and settled stream of the English common law, settled for over two hundred years by cases such as Dutton v. Poole, Mariyn v. Hind, Marchington v. Vernon and Carnegie v. Waugh, and with Jenkins C. J. in Debnarayan Dutt v. Chunlal Ghose (ILR. 41 Calcutta 137 with Lord Williams J in Khirod Behari v. Man Gobinda (AIR. 1934 Calcutta 682) and with Viswanatha Sastri J. in Veeramma v. Appayya (AIR. 1957 Andhra Pradesh 955) that free though they were of such impediments in the course of justice as the technicalities of the common law action of assumption and the divorce between law and equity which hampered the courts in England, and released by the definition of 'consideration' in S.2 (d) of the Indian Contract Act from that other rule of English Law (related to both being born of the notion that bargain is