Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. It has been suggested by the appellant's counsel that the documents above referred to did not in fact come into existence till 1920 after the lady's suit had ended in her favour, and have been fabricated in support of a false claim, but there is, in their Lordships' opinion, no foundation for this suggestion. They have no doubt that the documents were drawn up and completed on August 25, 1916, and that exhibit A, which was executed by the respondent, was in the possession of the appellant's husband from that time onwards. It was produced at the hearing of the present suit by a witness to whom it had been given by the husband eighteen months before in order to ascertain whether it was legally enforceable. It was also proved by the amin of the Court, by whom delivery of the lands decreed to the appellant was given, that the husband requested him to give delivery to the respondent of what was evidently the thirteen acres above referred to. Their Lordships have no doubt therefore that exhibits A and A1 are genuine documents executed on the date they bear. The real issue in the case is whether the appellant authorised their execution by her husband in her name, with subsidiary questions based on the doctrine of champerty, and her position as a gosha or pardanashin lady. The appellant denied all knowledge of the transaction and her husband did not give evidence.

17. Their Lordships must accordingly hold that the document was executed by the appellant.

18. It remains to be considered whether any further difficulty is raised by the doctrine of champerty, or by the fact that the appellant was admittedly a pardanashin lady.

19. The Subordinate Judge thought that the contract evidenced by the documents exhibits A and A1 was champartous, that the benefit which the respondent was to derive under it was disproportionate to the sum which he was to contribute to the costs of the litigation and the services which he was to render, and that under these circumstances the bargain should be regarded as unconscionable and extortionate. He, therefore, refused to award to the respondent a quarter-share of the properties recovered, but gave him a decree for Rs. 2,775, as representing the advances he had actually made, together with a lump sum of Rs. 1,000 for services rendered.