Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. In the course of the hearing it was alleged that the plaintiffs in those three suits were benamidars for other parties. The lower Courts have found that such was the fact and that finding is binding on us in second appeal. It is not very easy to say what was the precise ground on which the learned District Judge has affirmed the decision of the Court of First Instance. The learned Judge distinctly and unmistakably holds that a benamidar can sue in his own name. He also apparently has not dismissed plaintiffs' suits on the ground that they were champertous, though be says: "There is no positive law of champerty in the mofussil in India, but I still cannot suppose that the law permits and encourages the sort of person who has a good scent for sleeping and possible claims to possess himself of such for some slight and concealed consideration, then to cause the owner of the claim to execute any papers that are necessary for litigation and then to bring suits against persons in possession at his discretion. These words certainly leave it doubtful whether the District Judge did not hold that the suite were bad as being champertous. He also says that there were no genuine sales and that the sales were fictitious and shams. From the tenor of his judgment and that of the Subordinate judge which he adopts, it is clear that he has formed that opinion because he held that the sale considerations which actually passed between the vendor and the vendee were but small. In two cases it is shown by the Judge that a sum of Rs. 100 was paid in cash by the vendees to the vendor, and in the third case the sale-deed recites receipt of the sale consideration and further contains a promise by the vendee to assist the vendor in recovering the share he reserved to himself. The learned Judge as to this last deed finds that the sale consideration was not paid, and he also finds that the vendee did not assist the vendor in litigation. It is not easy to understand how the first of these questions could arise between the plaintiff and the defendant Ahmad Ata, and as to the failure to assist the vendor in his litigation, that might be a matter for a suit for damages by the vendor, but is not a reason for holding the sale-deed to be invalid or fictitious or a sham, or for allowing the defendant to raise such a plea.