Scribd
Upload
256 views4 pages

Contracts Project SYNOPSIS

This case study analyzes Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan vs Nawab Husaini Begam (1910), where Hussaini Begum sued the appellant for unpaid allowances from a marriage contract between the appellant and Begum's father. Though a third party, the court ruled in Begum's favor, representing an exception to the privity of contract principle that only direct parties may sue. The student's objectives are to understand privity exceptions, privity's status in India, analyze the case and ruling, and find other privity exception cases. The research questions examine when exceptions can exist, what determines an exception, and whether this ruling was fair.

Uploaded by

Anay Mehrotra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
256 views4 pages

Contracts Project SYNOPSIS

This case study analyzes Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan vs Nawab Husaini Begam (1910), where Hussaini Begum sued the appellant for unpaid allowances from a marriage contract between the appellant and Begum's father. Though a third party, the court ruled in Begum's favor, representing an exception to the privity of contract principle that only direct parties may sue. The student's objectives are to understand privity exceptions, privity's status in India, analyze the case and ruling, and find other privity exception cases. The research questions examine when exceptions can exist, what determines an exception, and whether this ruling was fair.

Uploaded by

Anay Mehrotra
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

BHOPAL (M.P)

‘SYNOPSIS’
LAW OF CONTRACTS – 1
SEMESTER I (FIRST PROJECT)

Topic- Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan vs Nawab Husaini


Begam (1910) : CASE STUDY

SUBMITTED TO : SUBMITTED BY:


ASST. PROFESSOR AYUSHI JAMBHULKAR
NEHA SHARMA 2020 BALLB
INTRODUCTION

NAWAB KHWAJA MOHAMMAD KHAN V. NAWAB HUSSAINI


BEGUM’ was an appeal made in the high court after a suit was filed by
Hussaini Begum against the appellant to recover arrears of certain
allowance, called kharch-i-pandan given in consideration of her marriage
with his son Rustam Ali Khan, both she and her future husband being
minors at that time. The marriage was fixed for November 2, 1877, and
the defendant declared of his own free will and accord that he “shall
continue to pay Rs. 500 per month in perpetuity” to the plaintiff for
“her betel-leaf expenses, from the date of the marriage, i.e. from the date
of her reception,” out of the income of certain properties therein
specifically described, which he then proceeded to charge for the
payment of the allowance. The contract was entered between the
appellant and father of hussaini begum. Hence hussaini begam was a
third party to this contract although she has a direct effect from the
breach of contract that took place. The appellant said that with respect
to the principle of privity of contact she cannot sue her as only parties to
contract can sue each other and no stranger is allowed to enter between
the parties to sue. But the court gave the judgement in favour Hussani
Begum as with the development of time, the law has also developed and
now even a stranger is permitted to sue to safeguard his/her interest.
LITRATRATURE REVIEW
 MULLA, THE INDIAN CONTRACT ACT
 INDIAN CONTRACT ACT 1872

OBJECTIVES
1. To understand the doctrine of privity of contract and its
exceptions
2. To know the status of Privity of Contract in India.
3. To study the case of Nawab Khwaja Mohammad Khan v. Nawab
Hussaini Begum’
4. To understand why there was an exception of privity of contract in
this case.
5. To find some other cases which were exceptions of privity of
contract.

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
The Privity of Contracts implies that when a contract has been
entered into between two parties only parties to contract can sue
each other when there is a breach of contract by either party. No
other person referred to as the third party can sue even if this
has caused damage to him. But in this case the court gave the
decision in favour of the third party.
HYPOTHESIS
Privity of Contract implies no third party can sue when there is a breach
of contract however there are exceptions to this.

Methodology
This project is mostly based on doctrinal research for which I have
referred various books, articles and online sites.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS
1. Can there be exceptions to the principle of Privity of Contract?
2. What are the factors that determine that a case is an exception of
privity of contract?
3. Whether the judgement favoring the third party in this case was
correct/fair or not?

WORKPLAN
In this research I will
 explain the background of the case
 analyze the case briefly
 explain the principle of Privity of Contract, the conditions and the
exceptions of the principle.
 The status of this rule in principle
 Mention similar cases and explain them briefly
 Write conclusion and my opinion

You might also like