JUDGMENT

Ba U, J - The facts which have given rise to this litigation are these: One U Tun E of Singaing Township, Kyaukse District, mortgaged some of his landed properties to a co-operative society. On his death the properties were redeemed by one U Shin; whereupon U Tun E's sons, Maung Tha Hywe, and Maung Thwe, approached the appellant Soon Thin and requested him to recover their father's lands from U Shin. Soon Thin agreed and as a result thereof a written agreement was executed the last paragraph of which runs as follows:

We respectfully beg that you will kindly recover the intestate properties left by our father U Tun Aye and redeem the same from the sooiety or from any other person concerned, for which act of kindness, we hereby agree, undertake and promise to pay Rs. 1,000. (Rupees one thousand only), to Mr. Tan Eng Lim and Rs. 50 per cent. (Rupees fifty per cent) only out of the net assets realized by you out of the estate whatever way, either by Law Court, arbitration or a private settlement amicably made out of Court, and we hereby bind ourselves to the above undertaking.

2. In pursuance of the said agreement the appellant Soon Thin filed a suit against U Shin and obtained a decree for redemption of U Tun E's lands. The properties were redeemed and taken possession of by the respondents Tha Gywe and Maung Thwe. The appellant then made a demand for payment of 50 per cent, of the assets realised by the respondents in accordance with the agreement set out above. The respondents refused to comply with the request and in consequence thereof the suit out of which the present appeal arises was instituted. The appellant alleged that the value of the nett assets realised by the respondents was Rs. 7,500, that the expenses incurred by him came to Rs. 2,500 and that deducting this sum of Rs. 2,500 out of the value of the neb assets he was entitled to half the balance. He accordingly claimed Rs. 5,000. The suit was resisted by the respondents on various grounds but none of the grounds, were accepted by either the trial or the lower appellate Court. The trial Court held that as the defendants-respondents obtained only over 100 acres of land valued at Rs. 25 per acre the appellant would be entitled to half of that, and a decree for Rupees 1,310-12-0 with proportionate, costs was granted. On appeal the lower appellate Court held that according to the agreement what the appellant was entitled to was not a decree for money but for half of the lands obtained by the respondents from U Shin. In that sense the decree of the trial Court was modified. It is now urged that the appellant is entitled not only to half of the assets realised by the respondents but also to the expenses incurred by him on behalf of the respondents in their litigation against U Shin:

The question for decision is whether the. agreement relied upon by the appellant should be enforced in its entirety or net. To answer this question a reference must be made to the case of Raghunath v. Nil Kanth (1893) 20 Cal. 843 the head note of which is in these terms:

The English law of champerty is not in force in India. Agreements made by claimants--of property in litigation to share it with others-on their obtaining decrees in consideration of funds being supplied by the latter for carrying on their suits are not in themselves opposed to public policy, nor are they necessarily void. But-such agreements, when extortionate, are inequitable; and in that case should not receive effect. Although the present suit failed for this last reason still reasonable compensation, under the claim for general relief for work done and expense properly incurred, could be awarded as it had been by the appellate Court below.

3. This case was followed by this Court in U Pe Gyi v. Maung Thein Shin 1924 Rang. 48. The facts of that case are very similar to the facts of the present case. In that case the appellant U Pe Gyi was granted a decree for the recovery of the amount which he spent in litigation on beha