Judgment

BEG, J.:- The three consolidated appeals before us by grant of special leave are directed against a common, Judgment of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, by which the plaintiff s appeals in three suits, filed on similar facts were dismissed. They can be decided by us on the question whether the contracts set up by the plaintiff appellant were struck by the provisions of Section 23 of the Contract Act. The section reads as follows:

23. The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law; or

is of such a nature that, it permitted, it 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 an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful, is void".

The appellant, firm of Pratapchand Nopaji, is the plaintiff in all the three suits, but the defendants of each suit the respondents before us, are different. The plaintiff claimed Rs. 78.201/15 ans, in original suit No. 106 of 1954, Rs,13,978/4 ans, in original suit No. 107 of 1954 and Rupees 91,697/4 ans. in original suit No. 114 of 1954, as amounts due to indemnify him under Section 222 of the Contract Act on the strength of Payments said to have been made by the plaintiff to third parties on behalf of the defendants who are alleged to have directed the plaintiff to enter into "badla" transactions for them. Three other suits, claiming amounts alleged to have been borrowed, also filed by the same plaintiff, were tried together with these three suits; but, we are not concerned here with the other three suits from the dismissal of which no appeal was preferred.

2. The character of the contract set up in each case is brought out by paragraph 3. of the original suit No. 106 of 1954 where the plaintiff said:

"The defendants are big merchants and have been carrying on trade outside Dhone, even in places like Bombay. They wanted to do the business of purchasing and selling groundnut seeds and oil seeds in Bombay market and for this purpose engaged the plaintiffs as commission agents to contact with Bombay Commission Agents, who were entering into contracts with customers for purchasing or selling groundnut seeds and custom oil seeds, according to the orders of the defendants which the plaintiffs were communication to them. The Bombay commission agents used to give intimation to the plaintiffs of the fact of having executed the orders (the contracts of sale or purchase) and the terms, the rate etc., of the contracts. The plaintiffs were immediately communicating the information to the defendants. The business was according to the custom prevailing in the Bombay Market, viz the custom of Badla. The defendants not only agreed in general to abide by the custom of Badla, but specifically consented to every such Badla. At the request of the defendants the transactions were settled after undergoing a few badlas. Such settlement were beneficial to the defendants as the market was falling and delay would have meant greater loss: when the market was falling the Bombay agents were pressing for cash settlement on pain of declaring them as defaulters which will result in a disability to do any further business. The defendants knew this state of affairs and the realised that a settlement was the only course beneficial to them. So they specifically told the plaintiffs that they must at any cost preserve their reputation in the Bombay market and with plaintiffs. The defendants hence agree to pay the amount and on their request and on their behalf the plaintiffs paid all amounts due to the Bombay Commission Agents according to the Patties sent by the Bombay Agents in respect of the transactions relating to the defendants. The defendants also agreed to pay to the plaintiff interests on the amounts so advanced by the plaintiffs for payment