1. The parties to the agreement must be standing in anear relationship to each other. What is near relationship has neither been defined in the Act, nor in any judicial pronouncement. But from the various decided cases it appears that it will cover blood relations or those related through marriage,73 but would not include those relations which are not "near", but only remotely entitled to inherit.
2. The promise should be made by one party out of natural love and affection for the other. In Rajlucky Dabee v. Bhootnath Mookerjee, it has been held that near relation between the two parties does not necessarily imply natural love and affection between them. After lot of disagreements and quarrels between a Hindu husband and wife they decided to live apart. At this stage the husband executed a registered document in favour of the wife whereby he agreed to pay for her separate residence and maintenance. In that agreement mention was also made about the quarrels and disagreements between the two.It was held that from the recitals in the document, it was apparent that the document had been executed not because of natural love and affection between the parties but because of the absence of it, and therefore the wife was not entitled to recover the sums mentioned in the document.
3. The promise should be in writing and registered. It is further necessary that the agreement should be in writing and registered under the law relating to registration of documents.
Compensation for past voluntary services The second exception of sec. 25 covers cases where a person without the knowledge of the promisor, or otherwise than at his request does the latter some service, and the promisor undertakes to recompense him for it.The promise to compensate though without consideration, is binding because of this exception. The exception also covers a situation where the promise is for doing something voluntarily "which the promisor was legally compellable to do." The exception covers situations where the service is rendered voluntarily and without promisor's knowledge. It is also necessary that the service must have been rendered to the promisor and nobody else.
1. The promise must be to pay wholly or in part a time-barred debt, i.e., a debt of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits. It is necessary that the debt must be one of which the creditor might have enforced payment but for the law for the limitation of suits. It, therefore, does not cover such debts which are unenforceable for some other reasons. Thus, if an insolvent debtor has been discharged from payment under the Insolvency law a subsequent promise by him to pay that debt cannot be enforced unless there is a fresh consideration for the same.
2. The promise must be in writing and signed by the person to be charged therewith, or his duly authorised agent. Debt due by whom ? In Pestonji v. Hal Meherbai, the Bombay High Court has expressed the view that under this exception, the promise should be to pay time-barred debt due from the promisor, and not a promise to pay time-barred debts due from other persons. There should be express promise. Section 25(3) requires an express promise to pay a time-barred debt rather than a mere acknowledgment of the debt.