AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
1 paragraphs · 112 words
Norman Macleod, C.J.—Both the Courts have found in this case that the promise to pay the annuity was the consideration for the agreement to give the boy in adoption. That would be sufficient to invalidate the agreement; and we need not consider the question whether the payment of the annuity, if there had been good consideration for it, could be enforced against the heirs of Ganpatrao, although we may point out that the two decisions in Balkrishna v. Janardana (1904) 6 Bom. 642 and Babubhai v. Beharilal (1905) 7 Bom. L.R. 686 appear to be in conflict, and may require to be considered hereafter. The appeal, therefore, will be dismissed with costs.