However, years later, Gulab Rani filed a complaint to reclaim ownership of some of that estate, claiming in particular that the contractual compromise act under Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act was null and foregoing because he recognizes the marriage. In this case, the Supreme Court found that section 27 could not be explicitly set aside for all agreements (except one exception) and that there were no two meanings to be attributed to the section. The vulnerability test in England cannot be applied in India. However, a Betrothal contract is also not considered an agreement limiting marriage within the meaning of Article 26 of the Indian Contracts Act, since the fundamental difference between an agreement limiting marriage and a fiancee contract is that, in the latter case, any party excluded from the marriage, with the exception of the other , practically works to promote the marriage of the two. (ii) Any agreement that partially limits the marriage of a person other than a minor is non-immediate if, in the circumstances of this case, it is deemed inappropriate.» An agreement on marriage mediation is fundamentally different from a marriage restriction agreement, because it is necessarily an agreement with a third person, that is, with a person whose own marital law is not affected, whereas he wants to influence the marriage of two others. Section 27 of the Act mentions only one exception that attests to the restriction of trade, i.e. the sale of good s or goodie. Another exception is the Partnership Act. […] Marriage withholding agreement (section 26) […] Shalini has an office supplies and books store in a place in Bareilly. A Zahida person plans to open his store with similar goods in the same place. Fearing competition in the market, Shalini entered into an agreement with Zahida not to open its business in the region for 15 years and promised in exchange to pay him a certain amount of money each month. Later, Shalini will not pay the agreed amount. Zahida is trying to take the case to court.

The agreement is inconclusive, Zahida has no case. A similar attitude was also adopted in A. Suryanarayana Murthi v. P. Krishna Murthy, in which The Mitwitwens had reached an agreement to lose their share in the deceased husband`s property if they remarried, and this was held a valid contract, as the agreement did not directly limit the marriage. In the recent case of Shrawan Kumar v. Nirmala, the petitioner filed a complaint in the court of Allahabad high asks the court for an injunction on the marriage of the accused with the other person. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant had promised to marry her and that, therefore, her marriage to the other person should be charged.

Pankaj Mithal, J. cites Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act in 1872, when he was giving his verdict, denouncing the petition. There are two exceptions to Section 28, as mentioned in the legislation. Agreements limiting court proceedings are valid if: Section 26 of the Indian Contract Act is a widespread provision with only one significant exception.