Facts: Nandini, by deed of gift, made over certain landed property to Reena, her daughter. By the terms of the deed, which was registered, it was stipulated that an annuity of Rs. 3,000 should be paid every year to the Subhashini, sister of Nandini, Rena executed in Subhashini's favour an agreement promising to give effect to the stipulation. The annuity was, however, not paid and the subhashini sued to recover it. Reena id defending herself by claiming that there is no valid contract with Subhashini. Which of the following can be ground/s for court's decision? (AILET 2019) I. A promise is enforceable if there is some consideration for it and it is quite immaterial whether in moves from the promise or any other person II. Only a person who is a party to a contract may demand the execution of that contract from other party. But if there is third party beneficiary to contract then It is enforced to the extent of his/her benefit. III. The agreement is valid as both Reena and Subhashini agreed to on the same thing in the same sense. IV. There is no privity of contract a Subhashini has furnished no consideration. Reena had promised to subhashini but consideration was furnished by Nandini.

Each question consists of legal principle(s) (hereinafter referred to as 'principle') and facts. Such proposition may or may not be true in the real and legal sense, yet you have to conclusively assume them to be true for the purposes of this section. You have to apply the principles to the given facts to arrive at the most reasonable conclusion. Only one of the alternatives, i.e., (A), (B), (C), or (D) is the most reasonable conclusion. Remember: you must not rely on any principle except the principles that are given for every question.