Sham Sundar Lal And Ors. vs Achhan Kunwar And Anr. on 27 July, 1898
14. It is also the appellant's case that before his adoption Nana Maharaj had promised to Chimna Maharaj that, after adoption, he would grant to the latter in perpetuity lands yielding an annual income of Rs. 1,000. This is deposed to by the appellant (Exhibit 231), and by his mother (Exhibit 127). Both of them say that the promise was made in writing "for the trouble and expense of the work of adoption." The written agreement is not produced, and the deed of gift makes no reference to it. There are some other witnesses who speak to the promise and it is sought to be proved also by certain letters purporting to be those of Nana Maharaj. Even if there was such an agreement, it is not shown to be supported by any consideration; and, even if it were supported by consideration, it was illegal, because it was made by Nana Maharaj as an expectant heir with reference to property which he hoped to get after his adoption by Bhavanibai. Such an agreement is invalid and inoperative according to Hindu Law: Sham Sunder Lal v. Achhan Kunwar (1898) L.R. 25, I.A. 183, 189; and see Sumsudin v. Abdul Hussein (1906) I.L.R. 31 Bom. 165, 174 where other decisions to the same effect are cited. In any case, Nana Maharaj's promise cannot render the deed of gift valid, if it is invalid on other grounds.