https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304366 A stranger to a contract cannot enforce a promise made between others merely because the contract was intended to benefit him. The stipulation in the sale deed was treated only as a direction by the vendor to the vendee to pay certain creditors, not as the creation of any trust or other enforceable interest in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged oral agreement to pay the plaintiff was not proved. The Court applied the principle that enforcement by a third party requires a recognised exception such as trust, charge, novation, estoppel, or another legally accepted basis; mere benefit under the contract is insufficient, and joinder of parties does not create a cause of action where none exists. en-us Wed, 13 Nov 1929 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 22 Sep 2022 10:42:56 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304366 A stranger to a contract cannot enforce a promise made between others merely because the contract was intended to benefit him. The stipulation in the sale deed was treated only as a direction by the vendor to the vendee to pay certain creditors, not as the creation of any trust or other enforceable interest in favour of the plaintiff. The alleged oral agreement to pay the plaintiff was not proved. The Court applied the principle that enforcement by a third party requires a recognised exception such as trust, charge, novation, estoppel, or another legally accepted basis; mere benefit under the contract is insufficient, and joinder of parties does not create a cause of action where none exists. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 13 Nov 1929 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=304366