Solution

The concept of 'Antecedent Debt' in Indian Contract Law refers to a debt that was already due and payable by a party to the other party before the contract was entered into. This concept was first described in the case of Brij Narayan Rai v. Mangal Prasad (AIR 1924 PC 50), which is a landmark case in the Indian Contract Law. In this case, the plaintiff had advanced a loan to the defendant, and the defendant executed a mortgage deed in favor of the plaintiff to secure the loan. Later, the defendant entered into an agreement with a third party to sell the mortgaged property without the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued the defendant for breach of contract. The defendant argued that the contract was void because there was no consideration for it. However, the court held that the plaintiff had already advanced a loan to the defendant before the contract was entered into, and the mortgage deed was executed to secure the antecedent debt. Therefore, the court held that the contract was enforceable, and the plaintiff was entitled to the relief sought. This case established the principle that a promise to pay an antecedent debt is a valid consideration for a contract. The landmark judgement Pannalal v/s Narayan (1952) held that a debtor's liability to pay a time-barred debt could be revived if the creditor makes an express promise to forgo the limitation period and the debtor acknowledges the debt and promises to pay it. This principle is known as the Doctrine of Promissory Estoppel or Promissory Estoppel on the basis of past consideration. This case is significant in the Indian Contract Act as it introduced the concept of promissory estoppel in India. The landmark judgement Sitaram v/s Harihar (1933) held that a minor's agreement is void ab initio, which means it is void from the beginning and has no legal effect.