Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The law in England on this point still remains the same. As pointed out in Halsbury :

"The Courts will not enforce, or act upon, an agreement which amounts to maintenance and champerty."

(Simonds Edn. ; Vol. I; Pt. 7; Sec. 83 P. 41). It is pointed out in para 82 that where a person assists a poor stranger his action is justified if he had a bona fide belief in the justice of his cause, but a mercenary bargain takes the case out of the exception. Then it is laid down that an agreement to supply funds or legal assistance for litigation in return for a share in the proceeds is champertous and that unlike other kinds of maintenance, champerty is not excused even by blood-relationship (See 84, P. 42). It will be manifest that the law regarding champertous agreement is very strict in England.

"The main objection which we have to the existing state of the law is that it does not in practice protect the litigant sufficiently against the financier, and that it usually in no way protects the party against whom a speculative case is brought. We do not propose any alteration of the law which will make such agreements as fall within the definition of champertous agreements in the English law void under Section 23 of the Contract Act (Act IX of 1872). We propose no alteration under Section 6 of the Transfer of Property Act (Act IV of 1882), but we do propose that all agreements of a champertous nature should be made voidable under the provisions of Act IX of 1872.
"In India the specific rules of English law in respect of champertous agreements have not been adopted and the only provision for holding some of them illegal is Section 25 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872). The Civil Justice Committee were of the opinion that the law should be so amended as to check the evils which arise from champertous litigation. The amendments proposed will implement the recommendation of that Committee."

22. The Statement of Objects and Reasons is certainly not admissible as an aid to the construction of a statute. But it can be referred to for the limited purpose of ascertaining the conditions, prevailing at tne time which actuated the sponsor of the Bill to introduce the same and the extent and urgency of the evil which he sought to remedy. State of West Bengal v. Subodh Gopal 1954 SCR 587 at p. 628 : (AIR 1954 SC 92 at pp. 104-105) (T) and M.K. Ranganathan v. Government of Madras 1955-2 SCR 374 at p. 385 : ( (S) AIR 1955 SC 604 at p. 608) (U).

19-C. A champertous agreement may be set aside upon such terms and conditions as the court may deem fit to impose."

24. The preamble of this Act is significant. The preamble of a statute has been said to be a good means of finding out its meaning and as it were a key to its understanding. Thangal Kunju Mussaliar v. Venkatachalam (S) AIR 1956 SC 246 para 63 (V). It will be clear from the preamble that the aforesaid 1938 Act made champertous agreements voidable. The intention of the Legislature was not to codify the principle enunciated by the Privy Council in 4 Ind App 23 (PC) (C) but to discourage such agreements.