MANICKA GOUNDER Vs. MUNIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS civil revision petition involves a question of law of considerable interest. The facts would appear to be very clearly established and to admit of little or no doubt.

(2.) AS is well known, S. 23 of the Indian Contract Act (9 of 1872) declares that-

(3.) VERY briefly stated, the revision petitioner is the defendant in a suit by a certain Muniammal, the plaintiff, to recover a sum of Rs. 810 being the principal and interest due on a promissory note executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. The findings of the Courts below, as they stand at present, are that, though there was no cash consideration ex facie appears on the instrument, the consideration for the document, Ex. A-1 was part cohabitation between the parties. The learned Additional Subordinate Judge has rejected the view of the trial court, that any part of the consideration under Ex. A-1 could possibly refer to future cohabitation. But this cohabitation admittedly amounted to adulterous intercourse, since the plaintiff was a woman married to another at all relevant periods.