Back
1925 Supreme(Oudh) 113
HIGH COURT OF OUDH
Dalal, J.C.
Pandit Krishna Nand - Appellant
Versus
Mt Shivaraji - Respondent
Decided On : 18-05-1925
JUDGMENT
Dalal, J C - The facts are these. The plaintiff is a widowed sister of the defendant's wife. The defendant took her into his house when she was only 8 or 10 years of age and kept her as his mistress as soon as she attained the age of puberty. In 1908 with the woman getting older and there being disputes between this woman and her sister, the defendant's wife, the defendant thought it better to get rid of her and executed an agreement promising to pay her a monthly allowance. The allowance consisted of Rs. 2 in cash and the profits of a certain property. There is a son 5 years old of the connection.
2. The woman brought this suit for the recovery of arrears of allowance under the agreement and made a statement on oath in Court. The defendant made no such statement and took refuge behind considerations of immorality after he had performed acts, which according to him were immoral. There is no force in this argument. Section 23 of the Contract Act says that the consideration or object of an agreement is lawful unless the Court regards it as immoral or opposed to public policy. Two Courts, one presided by a Hindu gentleman and another by a Muhammadan gentleman, have not regarded the consideration as immoral. This is a third Court presided over by another Indian and I do not consider the consideration to be immoral. That settles the matter.
3. It was further argued that the deed ought to have been registered. There is no charge created on the immovable property. There is only promise for the payment of money and different avenues as to the sources of money are indicated in the agreement. Registration was not necessary.
4. On behalf of the appellant a ruling of the Bombay High Court reported in Kisandas Laxmandas Bairagi v. Dhondu Tokaram (1920) 44 Bom. 542 was quoted. That ruling is merely an opinion of two Judges without any reasoning and in this case I have pointed out that there is opinion of three different Judges against it.
5. I dismiss this appeal with costs.
