Patanjali Sastri, J.
1. This second appeal arises out of a suit brought to enforce an agreement whereby the defendant (appellant) promised to pay Rs. 100 every year as maintenance to the second plaintiff. The first plaintiff is the assignee of the arrears which had fallen due before the assignment.
2. The defendant pleaded that the agreement was not supported by consideration and was therefore not enforceable. Both the lower Courts have held that there was no consideration to support the agreement but the suit was decreed on the ground that the agreement fell under Section 25 (1) of the Indian Contract Act. Under that provision an agreement without consideration is enforceable if it is expressed in writing and registered and is made on account of natural love and affection between parties standing in a near relation to each other. The agreement in this case recites inter alia that the second plaintiff is the defendant's father-in-law's divided brother's widow and that as it was impossible for her to maintain herself decently otherwise and it would be respectable to maintain her ' without detriment to prestige' the defendant promised to pay her the maintenance for her lifetime. No reference is made to natural love and affection between the parties but the defendant admitted in his evidence that he made the promise out of affection for the second plaintiff. The question however remains whether the parties can be said to stand in a near relation to each other. I have been referred to a number of cases on this point of which the decision of the Oudh Court reported in Niser Ahmed Khan v. Rahmat Begum comes nearest to the facts of the present case. There a near relation was held to subsist between a promisor and his parents in law for the purposes of Section 25 (1), but assuming that case to have been correctly decided, it seems to me that it does not. assist the respondents as the relationship between the parties here is two steps more remote. I am clearly of opinion that these parties cannot be said to stand in a near relation to each other within the meaning of Section 25 (1) of the Indian Contract Act and that the respondents' claim must fail.
3. The appeal is therefore allowed and the suit is dismissed with' costs throughout.
4. Leave refused.