PASSARILAL MANNOOLAL Vs. CHHUTTANBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal against a decision of the 2nd Additional District judge, Jabalpur, holding that the contract in the suit is champertous and cannot be specifically enforced; but at the same time it granted a decree for Rs. 4,000/in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff has come in second appeal and desires specific performance of the contract and prays for the restoration of the trial court's decree.

(2.) THE facts of the case are: Lala Ram Dube (respondent No. 3) is the father, respondent No. 1 Smt. Chhuttanbai is his daughter and respondent No. 2 moolchand is his son. There were disputes between father and son about the property which according to the former was self-acquired, and according to the latter was ancestral. The wife of Moolchand (respondent No. 2) also filed a suit against her father-in-law for the return of her ornaments. The son had no money to file a suit for partition; so he approached the plaintiff for some money. The plaintiff agreed to finance the son mainly for the litigation and an agreement was entered into on 7-7-1948 between the plaintiff and Moolchand (respondent No. 2 ). The portion of that agreement (Ex- P-5), which is material is as follows :

(3.) THE partition suit (Ex. P-12) was filed by Moolchand against his father on 2-81948. It continued till 5-12-1949. Meanwhile, the suit of Moolchand's wife for return of ornaments against her father-in-law was decreed by the Court. Soon after it, on 3-12-1949 the partition suit was compromised. The main conditions in the compromise as given in the decree signed on 7-12-1949 (Ex. P-9) were the following :