SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1935 Supreme(All) 23

BENNET, SULAIMAN
Ahmad Ali Khan – Appellant
Versus
Riyasat Ali Khan – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Sulaiman, C.J. - I concur in the order proposed. No doubt there are several classes of pensions and those falling u/s 7 are not subject to the provisions of Sections 4 and 6, Pensions Act, (Act 23) of 1871. It is also true that the burden is on the defendants to show that the pension in dispute in this case was of the class mentioned in Sections 11 and 12. But inasmuch as it has been assumed throughout in all the Courts that this was a political pension of the nature to which Section 12 would be applicable, I would prefer not to base my decision on the ground that this has not been established by the defendants.

2. In the same way I have considerable difficulty in holding that even if the withdrawal of the claim to the political pension in the former suit was in fact an invalid and void offer, the counter promise is enforceable. So far as the Indian Contract Act, is concerned, all considerations and objects of an agreement are unlawful which are of such a nature that if permitted they would defeat the provisions of any law. If therefore the object of an agreement is such that if carried out, it would be contrary to the provisions of any law, it would follow that it would def

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top