MANIKKA MOOPPANAR Vs. PERIA MUNIYANDI PANDITHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition to revise the decree of the Subordinate Judge of Ramnad at Madura dated 20 November, 1933, affirming on appeal the Decree of the District Munsif of Srivilliputhur dated 12 April, 1933, in O.S. No. 592 of 1931, a suit to recover Rs. 325 from the defendants as commission due to him for having negotiated the sale of some lands by one Alamelu Ammal in favour of the defendant. According to the plaint, the plaintiff was looking after the family affairs of the deceased husband of Alamelu Animal for a long time and the defendants came to him and it was agreed between him and the defendants that certain lands which were going to be sold by Alamelu Ammal to satisfy her creditors should not be sold to strangers but should be sold to the defendants cheaply according to the then market price, and that for such trouble as the plaintiff took in the matter, the defendants should pay him a commission of 5 per cent, on the sale price, that in accordance with that agreement, the plaintiff took much trouble in completing the sale and that the defendants have not paid the commission in spite of demand.

(2.) The defendants put forward two defences, namely, that there was no such agreement as mentioned in the plaint, and that if there was such an agreement, it was not enforceable because it was illegal and opposed to public policy. Both these defences have been dismissed by the Courts below and the plaintiff has obtained a decree as sued for.

(3.) As regards the factum of the agreement the matter is one of fact and the findings of the Courts below cannot be questioned in revision. The only point therefore that remains to be decided in this petition is whether the agreement that has been alleged in the plaint and spoken to by the plaintiff in his evidence during the trial, is an unenforceable contract. In the trial Court, ft appears to have been contended that the agreement was unenforceable because of Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act and especially in view of illustration (j) to that section. Section 23 of the Contract Act runs as follows: The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law, or is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law, or is frauduleut, or involves or implies injury to the person or property of another, or the Court regards it as immoral, or opposed to public policy.