Mr. Sooraj sold 10 acres of his agricultural land to Mr. Murli on 25th September 2019 for Rs. 25 Lakhs. The Property papers mentioned a condition, amongst other details, that whosoever purchases the land is free to use 9 acres as per his choice but the remaining 1 acre has to be allowed to be used by Mr. Chander, son of the seller for carrying out farming or other activity of his choice. On 12th October, 2019, Mr. Sooraj died leaving behind his son and wife. On 15th October, 2019 Mr. Murli started construction of an auditorium on the whole 10 acres of land and denied any land to Mr. Chander. Now Mr. Chander wants to file a case against Mr. Murli and get a suitable remedy. Discuss the above in light of provisions of Indian Contract Act, 1872 and decide upon Mr. Chander's plan of action?

Problem as asked in the question is based on the provisions of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 as contained in section 2(d) and on the principle ‘privity of consideration’. Consideration is one of the essential elements to make a contract valid and it can flow from the promisee or any other person. In view of the clear language used in definition of ‘consideration’ in Section 2(d), it is not necessary that consideration should be furnished by the promisee only. A promise is enforceable if there is some consideration for it and it is quite immaterial whether it moves from the promisee or any other person. The leading authority in the decision of the Chinnaya Vs. Ramayya, held that the consideration can legitimately move from a third party and it is an accepted principle of law in India. In the given problem, Mr. Sooraj has entered into a contract with Mr. Murli, but Mr. Chander has not given any consideration to Mr. Murli but the consideration did flow from Mr. Sooraj to Mr. Murli on the behalf of Mr. Chander and such consideration from third party is sufficient to enforce the promise of Mr. Murli to allow Mr. Chander to use 1 acre of land. Further the deed of sale and the promise made by Mr. Murli to Mr. Chander to allow the use of 1 acre of land were executed simultaneously and therefore they should be regarded as one transaction and there was sufficient consideration for it. Moreover, it is provided in the law that “in case covenant running with the land, where a person purchases land with notice that the owner of the land is bound by certain duties affecting land, the covenant affecting the land may be enforced by the successor of the seller.” In such a case, third party to a contract can file the suit although it has not moved the consideration. Hence, Mr. Chander is entitled to file a petition against Mr. Murli for execution of contract.