Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

5. The heirs of the late Nawab Sajjid Yar Jung (hereinafter referred to as "Nawab") contested the suit and denied that the plaintiff had advanced any amounts to the Nawab. They also raised other contentions including the contentions that the suit was barred by limitation and that the agreement of June 27, 1952 was unenforceable in law as it was in the nature of a champerty deal which was opposed to public policy and forbidden by law.

6. The City Civil Court where the suit was filed found that the agreement was genuine, that it was admissible in evidence, that the amounts were advanced by the plaintiff to the Nawab and that the suit was not barred by limitation. However, the Court found that the agreement was opposed to public policy as the object of the agreement was that the plaintiff should wield his influence with Central and State Ministers to have the Nawab recognised as the heir to the estate in return for his being given one anna share in the amount to be received by the Nawab. The Court, therefore, held that the agreement in question was not enforceable. The Court also held that even the amounts actually advanced by the plaintiff and received by the Nawab could not be recovered by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court dismissed the suit with costs. The plaintiff preferred an appeal to the High Court.

10. The next question is whether the advance in question was opposed to public policy. On this question, Shri Shah took us through the law on the subject, and contended that both the City Civil Court as well as the High Court have created a new head of public policy to declare the agreement as void, although according to the relevant statutory Provisions as well as the decisions of the Court, the agreement is not void. In the first instance, he referred us to the provisions of Sections 23, 65, 69, 70 and Part (ii) of Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act. Section 23 states that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law; or is of such a nature that, if permitted, would defeat the provisions of any law, or is fraudulent; or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another; or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy. In each of these cases the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void. He then pointed out to us that the specific rule of English law against maintenance and champerty have not been adopted in India and a champertous agreement is not per se void in this country. He contended that before a champertous agreement is held to be void, it must be shown that it is against public policy or against justice, equity and good conscience. He contended in this connection that the Nawab admittedly did not have sufficient finance to prosecute his claim though, he had a valid claim as shown by the result of the litigation in that behalf. The plaintiff, therefore, did not do anything wrong in advancing the amount in question to him to enable him to establish his claim successfully since the Nawab could not have repaid the amount unless he got a share in the estate. It was a legitimate exercise to reduce the agreement to writing and to stipulate therein that the amount should be repaid along with a share in the estate when the Nawab's claim was established. The share in the estate being only one anna in a rupee could not also be said to be on the high side and conscionable. The High Court has given a finding in that behalf in favour of the appellant. The High Court has, however, held against the appellant only on the ground that the agreement was against public policy. He strenuously urged that if the champertous nature of the agreement is ignored which it is legitimate to do so in this country, there is no other ground of public policy on which the agreement can be struck down.

11. In this connection, he referred us to the decision of this Court in the matter of Mr. 'G', a Senior Advocate of the Supreme Court, [1955] 1 SCR 490 where it is reiterated that a champertous contract would be legally unobjectionable if no lawyer was involved and that the rigid English rules of Champerty and Maintenance do not apply in India. In that case, he pointed out to us that the agreement was held unenforceable because it was agreement between a lawyer and his client and it amounted to professional misconduct. However, this Court has also observed there that if such an agreement had been between a third party "it would have been legally enforceable and good. It may even be that it is good in law and enforceable as it stands though we do not so decide because the question does not arise; but that was argued and for the sake of argument even that can be conceded. It follows that there is nothing morally wrong, nothing to shock the conscience, nothing against public policy and public morals in such a transaction per se, that is to say, when a legal practitioner is not concerned. But that is not the question we have to consider. However much these agreements may be open to other men what we have to decide is whether they are permissible under the rigid rules of conduct enjoyed by the members of a very close professional preserve so that their integrity, dignity and honour may be placed above the breath of scandal".