The learned Subordinate Judge finds as a question of fact that the petitioner paid Rs. 550 to the mother of D.W.1 only for the sake of continuing as shanbogue and in consideration of D.W.1 not reverting to that post. On that finding the question is whether the Kaikada suffers from the infirmity mentioned in section 23 of the Contract Act as being opposed to public policy. It has been held in Swaminatha Aiyar v. Muthuswami Pillai1, that an undertaking to pay money to a public servant to induce him to retire and thus make way for the appointment of the promisor is practically trafficking in office and as such void under section 23 of the Contract Act. Here a sum of money was paid to the mother of the previous shanbhogue in order that the shanbhogue should not revert to the office. The decision in Swaminatha Aiyar v. Muthuswami Pillai1 applies to the facts of the present case. But Mr. Nambiar contends that this defence was not raised in the reply to the lawyer’s notice. Even if that is so, when once it is found on the evidence which cannot be disputed here, that the money was paid as consideration for an object, which is opposed to public policy, it cannot be said that the l