A champertous agreement is an agreement to finance litigation and to share the fruits thereof. Such agreements are not illegal per se, but they may be unenforceable if they are found to be opposed to the principles of equity and good conscience or if they are unconscionable and extortionate.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal filed by the defendant, challenging the decree passed by the lower Appellate, Court under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The trial Court had dismissed Civil Suit No. 92-A/91 filed by the respondent. The lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal of the respondent and granted a decree for specific performance of contract against the appellant in respect of 1/6th share of property detailed in the plaintmap.

( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the controversy involved in the suit, it is necessary to give a short version of facts on which the parties went to trial. The respondent, inter alia, pleaded that there was a written agreement dated 23-l0-1978 between the respondent and the appellant in respect of the property shown in the schedule annexed to the plaint. The agreement dated 23-10-1978 purported to be a. contraet of sale whereby ihe appellant agreed to sell the entire plot received by her as result of the decree of the Court in Civil Suit No. 15-A/77, Kamrunissa v. Sophiya, to which she was one of the litigating parties. It was alleged that the agreement for sale showed the consideration to be Rs. 13,000/-of which the appellant had already received Rs. 3,500/ -. The respondent pleaded in the plaint that the area of the property shown in the plaint map was 3975 square feet. Out of this area the appellant was awarded l / 6th share by the decree passed in Civil Suit No. 15-A / 77. This 1 / 6th of the total area of the plot would be 497 square feet. The market value of this plot was alleged to be Rs. 6163/ -. It was further stated in the plaint that the respondent, after delivery of judgment dated 4-4-1985, in First Appeal No. 75/79, arising out of judgment and decree in Civil Suit No. 15-A/ 77, approached the appellant for fulfilment of her promise according to the aforesaid agreement. He was repulsed. Thereupon, the respondent served the notice by registered post through his counsel and when the appellant did not show any interest in the deal, he filed Civil Suit No. 92-A/9l against the appellant.

( 3 ) A careful scan of the plaint shows that the respondent has not specifically asserted that he was ready and willing to perform his part of constract after Civil Suit No. 15-A/ 77 was finally decided in appeal by the High Court. The inference of readiness aild Willingness is left to be drawn from the conduct of the respondent in accordance with the pleading made by the respondent that he approached the appellant after 4-4-1985 for getting the sale deed executed, and there after by the fact that he served a registered notice through his counsel. Even so, there is no specific averment to the effect that the respondent was ready and willing to perform his part of contract on the date of the suit by paying the balance of price. That apart, the plea of respondent that the market value of the plot of 497 square feet would be Rs. 6163/- shows that the respondent was seeking proportionate reduction in price. This plea rings in the mind of the Court different kind of bells.

( 4 ) THE plea of appellant in the written statement was that there was no contract of sale on 23-l0-1978 as per Ex. P-2. According to her, the transaction was out and out a transaction for loan. It was not disputed by the appellant that she took Rs. 3500/- from the respondent but she asserted that she took merely a loan and executed document dated 23-10-1978, Ex. P-2, as a security for loan That document was not meant to be acted upon. it was claimed that suit property was worth Rs. 80,000/- in the year 1978 and the value of said property had hiked to Rs. two lakhs at the time of filing of the suit. For the reasons aforesaid, the suit property could not be sold for Rs. 13,000/ -. It was also claimed that the agreement was invalid as it was a contingent contract. The appellant further resisted the suit of the respondent by saying that since the share of the appellant was not determined and, therefore, the suit was not mainta