Held, borrowings unlawful.

The question in this appeal is a simple but interesting one, namely, whether the amount advanced under a promissory note for the purpose of celebrating a marriage contrary to the provisions of the Child Marriage Restraint Act of 1929, hereinafter referred to as the Act, is recoverable. The facts are simple and are not in dispute.

The plaintiff is the brother-in-law of the first defendant, having married his sister. The second defendant is the mother of the first defendant. The second defendant borrowed a sum of Rs.5,000 from the plaintiff for the purpose of celebrating the marriage of the first defendant and executed a promissory note, Exhibit A-1, dated 29th May, 1944, in his favour as guardian of her minor son. As the first defendant was described in the promissory note itself as a minor and as the plaintiff was the brother-in-law, it cannot be disputed that he had knowledge of the fact that the money was borrowed for celebrating the marriage in contravention of the provisions of the Act. Indeed, no attempt has been made either in the Court below or before me to contend that the plaintiff had no knowledge of the said facts. The plaintiff filed O.S.No.29 of 1947 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Masulipatam, to recover the sum of Rs.5,956-2-6 alleged to be the principal and interest under the aforesaid promissory note.

The learned Subordinate Judge held that the purpose of the borrowing was unlawful within the meaning of section 23 of the Indian Contract Act; and therefore the suit promissory note was not enforceable. He also found that the promissory note was not executed for necessity and could not bind the estate of the minor. The above appeal was filed by the plaintiff against the said decree of the Subordinate Judge dismissing his suit.

Mr. Manawala Chowdry contended that the marriage in contravention of the provisions of the Act is not invalid and therefore the purpose for which the suit promissory note was executed was not unlawful within the meaning of section 23 of the Indian Contract Act.

The relevant provisions of the Indian Contract Act are as follows: “Section 10. All agreements are contracts if they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object and are not hereby expressly declared to be void.

Section 23. 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 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 of an agreement is said to be unlawful. Every agreement of which the object or consideration is unlawful is void.”

Under section 10, an agreement becomes an enforceable contract, if it is made for a lawful consideration and with a lawful object. Section 23 declares what kinds of considerations and objects are not lawful. If the object or consideration is unlawful for one or the other of the reasons mentioned in section 23 the agreement is void. It is not contended that the consideration for the agreement is unlawful. Therefore, two matters of enquiry present themselves:

(1) What is the connotation of the word “object” in the section as contradistinguished from the word “consideration”?

(2) Whether the object of the borrowing in the present case is unlawful?

The case-law on the subject indicates that the word “object” appears to be used in a very wide sense. The definition of that word is stated with clarity in Jaffer Meher AH v. Budge-Budge Jute Mills Co.1. The facts in that case are: One Kasim Karim assigned his interest under a contract to the plaintiff. The assignee sought to enforce his rights under the contract. The defendant company, the other party to the contract, contended inter alia that the assignment was made with the object of defeating the cred