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 -

"The consideration or object of an agreement is lawful, unless it is forbidden by law; or . . . . the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy."

The section then proceeds to state that in each of the given categories 'the consideration or object of an agreement is said to be unlawful'. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void."

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 past cohabitation between the parties. The learned Additional Subordinate fudge has rejected the view of the trial