Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(b) Are the defendants members of the joint Hindu family and the defendant No. 1 is the Karta of the family? Was the agreement for the benefit of defendants Nos. 3 and 4?

2. How much amount was paid by the plaintiffs to meet the expenses of these litigations?

3. In case of the decision of the issues Nos. 1 and 2 in favour of the plaintiffs, are the plaintiffs not entitled to get half share of the costs and hall amount of the sum of Rs. 20,000/- received by the defendants.

4. Is the contract champertous and not enforceable in law?

8. There is therefore no doubt about the fact that both Suganchand and Premchand appellants had entered into the contract alleged by the respondents and their denial of it was not honest.

9. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently urged that even if it be assumed that there was such a contract between the parties, it was of a champertous nature, it was nothing but gambling in litigation and, therefore, it was void, being opposed to public policy. According to learned counsel, the respondents' claim for Rs. 10,000/- was therefore not maintainable. It was further contended that the respondents had not been able to prove if they had given Rs. 1700/-to the appellants. He has also challenged the respondents' claim for Rs. 1012/12/- which are said to have been defrayed towards the expenses of the two appeals. Learned counsel has also challenged the respondents' right to receive interest. Learned counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand, tried to support the trial Court's decree in toto. The points, which therefore arises for our determination in this appeal are as follows :

It is contended that this was obviously a champertous agreement, and the respondents were only gambling in litigation. Learned counsel for the respondents has, on the other hand, urged that the respondents had agreed to pay half the price of half the property to the appellants in case of their success. They were not taking any undue advantage and that the agreement was therefore not unlawful. We have given due consideration to the arguments of both the parties. It may be observed that the agreement between the parties was undoubtedly champertous in character. In Wharton's Law Lexicon, champerty has been explained as meaning "a bargain between a plaintiff or defendant In a suit and a third person, campum partire, to divide between them the land or other matter sued for in the event of the litigant being successful in the suit, whereupon the champertor is to carry on his party's suit or action at his own expense."

In the present case, the respondents, on their own showing, had agreed to bear all the expenses of the appeals and to divide the property half and half in case of success. The contract between the parties was therefore clearly one of champerty and there appears no room for any doubt on that point. We shall discuss at a later stage as to what was the effect of the respondents agreeing with the appellants that they would pay half the price of the property in the event of their success.

It may however be observed here in favour of the respondents that although agreements involving champerty are illegal according to English Law, all such contracts are not necessarily illegal in India and, therefore, the Courts cannot strike down every such contract simply because it is one of champerty. Champertous agreements in India have been held void only when they are considered opposed to public policy on account of their being extortionate and unconscionable or if they are made for improper objects as gambling in litigation or injuring or oppressing others by abetting and encouraging unrighteous suits.