Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

7. For the respondents it was boldly argued that, although the English law as to maintenance and champerty is not, as such, applicable to India, yet on other grounds what is substantially the same law is there in force. Their lordships are of opinion that that proposition cannot be supported. In three cases Ram Coomar Coondoo v. Chunder Canto Mookerjee, (1876) 4 I. A 23; Kunwar Ram Lal v. Nil Kanth (1893) 20 I.A. 112; Lal Achal Ram v. Raja Kasin Husain Khan, (1905) 32 I.A. 113. before this Board, a contrary doctrine has been laid down. In the last of those cases full effect was given, under circumstances closely analogous to those of the present case, to an agreement which would certainly have been void if champerty avoided transactions in India.