~apter 6 j

LEGALITY CF OBJECT
AND CONSIDERATION

The object or consideration of an agreement must be lawful, in order to make

the agreement a valid contract, for, Section 10 lays down that all agreements
are contracts if made for lawful consideration and with a lawful object.
Section 23 declares what kinds of considerations and objects are not lawful. If
the object or consideration is unlawful for one or the other of the reasons
mentioned in Section 23, the agreement is ' illegal ' and therefore void (Sec. 23).
The use of the word ' illegal' is somewhat misnomering here. It usually
connotes a punishable offence, but the parties to a so called "illegal agree-
ment," unless it is expressly punishable by law or amounts to a criminal con-
spiracy, are not liable to punishment. They have committed no offence. They
have merely concluded a transaction that will be spumed by the courts. 1
The words 'object' and ' consideration' used in Section 23 are not synony-
mous. The word ' object' here means 'pwpose or design'. Thus, where a per-
son, while in insolvent circumstances, transferred his property to one of his
creditors with the object of defrauding his other creditors, it was held that the
agreement was void and the transfer was inoperative (Jaffar Meher Ali vs
Budge Budge Jute Mills Co. 2). The court observed that although the conside-
ration of the contract was lawful but the object was unlawful because the
purpose of the parties was to defeat the provisions of the Insolvency Law.
What Considerations and Objects are Unlawful?
According to Section 23, every agreement of which the object or consid-
eration is unlawful is void, and the consideration or the object of an agreement
is unlawful in the following cases:
1. If it is forbidden by law. This clause refers to agreements which are declared
illegal by law. If the consideration or object for a promise is such as is forbidden
by law, the agreement is void. An act or an undertaking is forbidden by law:
(a) when it is punishable by the criminal law of the country, or
( b) when it is prohibited by special legislation or regulations made by a
competent authority under powers derived from the legislature.3

1. Adapted from Chesire and Fifoot, The Law of Contract, IV Ed., p. 72.
2. ( 1906), 33 Cal. 702.
3. Cf. Pollock and Mulla, Indian Contract Act, p. 138.

I J
 LAW OF" CONTRACT

ILLUSTRATIONS. (a) Agreements for sale or purchase above the standard

price fixed by the relevant law (e.g ., Essential Commodities Act, 1955) with
regard to a controlled article are illegal and hence void (Sita Ram vs Kun} La/4 ).
(b) An agreement to pay consideration to a tenant to induce him to vacate
premises governed by the Rent Restriction Act is illegal and cannot be enforced
because such an act is forbidden by the said Act (Mohanchana vs Manindra 5 ).
2. Hit is of such a nature that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any
law. This clause refers to cases where the object or consideration of an
agreement is of such a nature that, though not directly forbidden by law, it
would indirectly lend to a violation of law, whether enacted or otherwise (e.g.,
Hindu and Mohammedan Laws). Such an agreement is also void.
ILLUSTRATIONS. (a)A loan granted under a promissory note to the guardian
of a minor to enable him to celebrate the minor's marriage in contravention of the
Child Marriage Restraint Act was held illegal and could not be recovered back
(Chandra Shrinivisa Rao vs Korrapati Raja Rama Mahana Rao6 ) . It will be seen
that the purpose of borrowing in this case is of such a nature that if permitted it
would defeat the provisions of Child Marriage Restraint Act of 19297 , for the
money was lent to enable the guardian to celebrate the marriage contrary to the
provisions of the said Act.
(b) An agreement by the debtor not to rise the plea of limitation, should a suit
have to be filed , is void as tending to limit the provisions of the Limitation Act
(Rama Murthy vs Gapayya8 ).
(c) An agreement between husband and wife to live separately is invalid as being
opposed to Hindu Law (A .E. Thimmal Naidu vs Rajamma/9) .
3. If it is fraudulent. An agreement whose object or consideration is to defraud
others, is unlawful and hence void.
ILLUSTRATIONS. (a)A , promises to pay ~00 toB, if Bwould commit fraud
on C. B agrees. B 's agreeing to defraud is unlawful consideration for A's promise
to pay. Hence the agreement is illegal and void.
(b) A, Band Center into an agreement for the division among them of gains
acquired. or to be acquired, by them by fraud . The agreement is void, as its object
is unlawful. [Illustration (e) to Section 23]
(c)A, being agent for a landed proprietor, agrees for money, without the knowledge
of his principal, to obtain for Ba lease of land belonging to his principal. The
agreement between A and Bis void as it implies a fraud by concealment by A on
his principal. [Illustration (g) to Section 23]
4. If it involves or implies injury to the person or property of another. If the
object or consideration of an agreement is injury to the person or property of
another, it is void, being an unlawful agreement.

4 . (1963), A.I.R. All. 206. S. (1955), A.LR. Cal. 442.

6 . (19S1), 2 Mad, L.J. 264.
7. This Act has been repealed by the Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1978. The new Act
raises the marriage age limit to 18 and 21 years for girls and boys respectively with
effect from 2 October 1978.
8. (1917), 40 Mad. 701. 9. (1968), A.I.R. Mad. 201.

86

C
 LEGALITY □ F" OBJECT AND C □ NSIDERATl □ N

ILLUSTRATIONS. (a)An agreement to commit an assault or to beat a man has

been held unlawful and void (Allen vs Rescous 10 ) .
(b) An agreement to put certain property to fire is unlawful and void under this
clause.
(c) An agreement involving the publication of a libel (defamatory article against
someone) has been held unlawful and void (Clay vs Yates 11 ) .
(d) An agreement by which a debtor, who borrowed flOO , promised to do
manual labour without pay for the creditor, so long as the debt was not repaid in
full has been held to be void, as it involved injury to the person of the debtor
(Ram Sarup vs Bansi Mandar 12 ).
5. If the court regards it as immoral. An agreement whose object or
consideration is immoral, is illegal and therefore void. The scope of the word
'immoral' here extends to the following:
(i) Sexual immorality e.g. , illicit cohabitation or concubinage or prostitu-
tion.
ILLUSTRATIONS. (a)A , agrees to let herdaughterto hire toB for concubinage.
The agreement is void, because it is immoral, though the letting may not be
punishable under the Indian Penal Code. [Illustration (k) to Section 23]
(b) A gift deed executed in consideration of illicit intercourse has been held void
as its object was immoral (Ghumma vs Ram Chandra 13).
It may be noted that an agreement to pay for 'past' or 'future ' illicit cohabi-
tation is also void, as being immoral. Consideration which is immoral at the time
when it passes cannot become innocent by passage of time and therefore the
consideration for past cohabitation is unlawful as being immoral (Hussenali vs
Dinbai 14) . Similarly, a promise to pay for the purpose of future cohabitation,
which comprised the consideration, was held illegal and void
(Lakshminarayana vs Subhadri 15) .
(ii) Furtherance of sexual immorality.
ILLUSTRATIONS. (a) A prostitute was sued for the hire money of a carriage in
which she used to go every evening in order to make a display of her beauty and
thus to attract customers. The suit was dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff
contributed towards the performance of an immoral and illegal act and hence he
was liable to suffer (Pearce vs Brooks 16) .
(b) A man who knowingly lets out his house for prostitution cannot recover the
rent, it being an act for furtherance of sexual immorality (Choga Lal vs Piyasi 11) .
The landlord may, however, recover if he did not know the purpose.
(iii) Interference with marital relations.

10. Lev. 174. 1 I. 1 H. & N. 73.

12. (1915), 42 Cal. 742. 13. (1926), 47 All. 619.
14. (1924), 25 Born. L.R. 252. 15. (1903), 13 Mad. L.J. 7
16. (1866), L.R. 1 Ex. 213. 17. (1909), 31 All. 58.

87

,.,., I II I J
 LAW OF" CONTRACT

ILLUSTRATIONS. (a) Money advanced to a married woman to enable her to

procure a divorce and to marry the plaintiff could not be recovered back as the
object of the agreement was held immoral (Bai Jt'ijli vs Nansa Nagar 18 ).
(b) An agreement for future separation between a husband and wife is void ab-
initio it being immoral in the eye oflaw.
(iv) Such acts which are against good public morals.
ILLUSTRATIONS. (a) An agreement for future marriage, after the death of
first wife is against good morals and hence would be void (Wilson vs Carnley 19 ).
(b) A , who is B's mukhtar, promises to exercise his influence, as such with Bin
n
favour of C and C promises to pay ,000 to A. The agreement is void, because
it is immoral. [Illustration (j) to Section 23]
6. If the court regards it as 'opposed to public policy'. An agreement is unlawful
if the court regards it as 'opposed to public policy'. It is not possible to give a
precise or exact definition of the term 'public policy' . It is rather an elastic term
and its connotation may vary with the social structure of a State. Public policy
is that principle of law which holds that no citizen can lawfully do that which
is injurious to the public or is against the interests of the society or the State.
Broadly speaking, an agreement which tends to promote corruption or injustice
or immorality is said to be opposed to public policy. It is interesting to note that
'opposed to public policy' and 'immoral', both are very much similar in nature
because what is ' immoral' must be 'opposed to public policy ' and reverse is
also true in most cases.
Public policy is an illusive concept. It has been described as an 'untrust-
worthy guide', 'unruly horse,' etc., and therefore, the doctrine of public policy
is generally governed by precedents. In Gherolal vs Mahadeodas 20 the Su-
preme Court observed," ... though the heads (of public policy) are not closed
and though theoretically it may be permissible to evolve a new head under
exceptional circumstances of a changing world, it is advisable in the interest of
stability of society not to make any attempt to discover new heads in these
days." The courts, thus, are generally disinclined to invent new heads of pub-
lic policy.
On the basis of decided cases on the subject the following agreements
have been held to be against public policy :
(i) Trading with an alien enemy. It is now fully established that trading
with an alien enemy (i.e. , a citizen of the other country at war with the State) is
against public policy in so far as it tends to aid the economy of the enemy
country. Such agreements are therefore illegal, unless made with the special
permission of Government. It is to be noted that an agreement to promote
hostile action in a friendly State is also illegal and void as being opposed to
public policy.

18. (1885), 10 Born. 152. 19. (1908), l K.B. 729.

20. (1959), A.LR. S.C. 781.

88

C ,
 LEGALITY □ F" OBJECT AND C □ NSIDERATl □ N

(ii) Agreements interfering with the course ofjustice. An agreement the

object of which is to interfere with the course of justice, e.g., an agreement not
to disclose misconduct to the other interested party or an agreement to influ-
ence a judge to induce him to decide the case in a party 's favour, is obviously
opposed to public policy and is void. But an agreement to refer present or
future disputes to arbitration is a valid agreement.
(iii) Agreements for stifling criminal prosecution. It is well settled law
that if a person has committed a crime, he must be punished. Hence any
agreement which seeks to prevent the prosecution of a guilty party is opposed
to public policy and is void, for "no one can be allowed to make a trade of a
felony." In Sudhindra Kumar vs Ganesh Chandra,2 1 " J. Mukherjee, has
observed: ''No court of law can countenance or give effect to an agreement
which attempts to take the administration of law out of the hands of the judges
and put it in the hands of private individuals." Where, therefore, A promises B
to drop a prosecution which he has instituted against B for robbery, and B
promises to restore the value of the thing taken, the agreement is void, as its
object is unlawful.22 Similarly, the compromise of a public offence is illegal. It is
obvious that if such a course is allowed to be adopted and agreements made
between the parties based solely on the consideration of stifling criminal
prosecutions are sustained, the basic purpose of Criminal Law would be
defeated. However, under the Indian Criminal Procedure Code there are certain
compoundable offences (e.g. , assault) which can be compromised and
agreements for the compromise of such offences are valid (Ramachandra vs
Bhauwari Bai 23 ) .
(iv) Maintenance and Champerty. 'Maintenance' may be defined as an
agreement whereby a stranger promises to help another person by money or
otherwise in litigation in which that third person has himself no legal interest.
'Champerty' is an agreement whereby a person agrees to assist another in
litigation in exchange of a promise to hand over a portion of the proceeds of the
action. Thus, in both cases financial or professional assistance is provided
with a view to assisting another person in litigation but in case of Champerty
the party helping in litigation also shares in the gains of the litigation in addi-
tion to interest on money advanced or fees for professional services.
Under the English Law such agreements are absolutely void. The Indian
Law, however, does not make them absolutely void because of the peculiar
position of Indian litigants many of whom are too poor to afford expensive
litigation. " The uncertainties of litigation are proverbial; and if the financier
must need risk losing his money he may well be allowed some chances of
exceptional advantage" (Ram Sarnp vs Court of Wards 24 ).

21. (1939), 1 Cal. 241. 22. Illustration (h) to Section 23.

23. (1973), A.I.R. Raj. 260. 24. (1940), 67 I.A 50.

89

c, I j
 LAW OF" CONTRACT

The rules applied in India are as follows:

1. An agreement for supplying funds by way of 'maintenance' or
'Champerty' is valid, unless:
(a) it is unreasonable so as to be unjust to the other party, or
(b) it is made by a malicious motive like that of gambling in litigation or
oppressing other party by encouraging unrighteous suits, and not with the
bona fide object of assisting a claim believed to be just (Bhagwat Dayal Singh
vs Debi Dayal Sahu 25 ).
2. An agreement/or providing professional se111ices is valid if it is made
by way of 'maintenance' and with a bona fide object of assisting a claim be-
lieved to be just and obtaining a reasonable recompense therefor. But if it is
made by way of 'Champerty', i.e., making the remuneration dependent to any
extent whatsoever upon the result of the suit, it is void (Kathi Jairam vs
i "ishvanath 26 ).
ILLUSTRATIONS. (a) Where 75 paise in a rupee was agreed as the share of the
financier, out of the property recovered, it was held that the agreement was
unreasonable and hence void. However, the plaintiff (financier) was awarded the
expenses legitimately incurred by him with interest (Nuthaki Vimkataswami vs
Katta Nagi Reddy27).
( b) An agreement by a client to pay his lawyer according to the result of the case
was held opposed to public policy and void, it being against the professional
code of conduct (Kathi Jairam vs Vishvanath 28) .
(v) Traffic in public offices. Agreements for sale or transfer of public offices
or for appointments to public offices in consideration of money are illegal,
being opposed to public policy. Such agreements, if enforced, would lead to
inefficiency and corruption in public life.
ILLUSTRATIONS. (a) A, promises to obtain for Ban employment in the public
service, and B promises to pay ~1 ,000 to A. The agreement is void as the
consideration for it is unlawful. [Illustration(/) to Section 23]
(b) So also a promise to pay money to a public servant to induce him to retire and
make way for the appointment of the promisor is void (Saminatha vs
Muthusami 29 ).
(vi) Agreements creating an interest opposed to duty. An agreement which
tends to create a conflict between interest and duty is illegal and void on the
ground that it is opposed to public policy.
ILLUSTRATIONS. (a) A , agrees to pay B , the lieutenant colonel in the army,
~50,000 ifhe will assist her brother to desert the army. The object ofthe agreement
is opposed to public policy and hence the agreement is void and illegal.
(b)An agreement by an agent with a third party whereby he would be enabled to

25. (1908), 35 Cal. 420. 26. ( 1925), A.I.R. Born. 470.

27. (1962), A.LR. AP. 457. 28. (1925), A.I.R. Born. 470.
29. (1907) 30 Mad. 530.
90

-., I + j
 LEGALITY OF" OBJECT AND CONSIDERATION

make secret profits is illegal and void as it tends to create a conflict between
interest and duty.
(vii) Agreements unduly restraining personal liberty. Agreements which
unduly restrict personal freedom have been held to be void and illegal as being
against public policy.
ILLUSTRATION. A, borrowed money fromB, a moneylender, and agreed that
he would not, without the written consent of B, leave his job, borrow money,
dispose of his property or change his residence. It was held that the agreement
was illegal as it unduly restricted the liberty ofA (Harwood vs Millers Timber&
Trading Co. 30).
(viii) Agreements interfering with parental duties. A father, and in his
absence the mother, is the legal guardian of his/her minor child. The authority
of a guardian is to be exercised in the best interest of the child, in accordance
with good public morals. If, therefore, the right of guardianship is bartered
away by any agreement which is inconsistent with the duties arising out of
such custody, such an agreement shall be void on the ground of public policy.
ILLUSTRATION. For monetary consideration, A agrees to place his daughter at
the disposal ofB to be married as B likes. The agreement is illegal and void as it
would interfere with A's parental duty to select a husband in the best interests of
the girl (Atma Ram vs Ban/at Ma/3 1).
(ix) Marriage brokerage agreements. These are agreements for the pay-
ment of money in consideration of procuring for another in marriage a husband
or a wife. Such agreements are illegal and void as being contrary to public
policy. Thus, when a ' Prohit' was promised t200 in consideration of procuring
a wife for the defendant, the agreement was held invalid and the money could
not be recovered (Pitamber vs Jagjiwan 32) .
Further, an agreement of dowry 33 i.e., to give money or property to the
parents of the bride or the bridegroom in connection of their agreeing to the
contract of marriage is also illegal and cannot be enforced. But such an agree-
ment is illegal in respect of payment only, the validity of marriage is not af-
fected. So, once the marriage is solemnised, money if actually paid cannot be
recovered back, and if not paid, a suit therefore would not lie, because the

30 . (1917), 1 K.B. 305.

31. (1930), Lah. 561.
32. 13 Born. 131.
3 3. The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 had defined dowry as property given directly or
indirectly by one party to another, by parents of one party to either party at or
before or after the marriage in consideration of marriage. The Dowry Prohibition
(Amendment) Act, 1984 has changed the definition of dowry slightly. The new Act
has defined dowry as property given in connection (not consideration) with marriage.
The Amendment Act, however, clarifies that presents given to the bride or the
bridegroom at the time of marriages, voluntarily, without a demand being made, will
not be treated as dowry. But these presents will have to be carefully listed in accordance
with the rules of the Amendment Act.

91
 LAW OF" CONTRACT

agreement to pay is illegal. Of course the money can be recovered when the
marriage is not performed (Dharnidhar vs Kanhji Sahay34). Similarly, clothes
and ornaments or their value can be recovered if the marriage does not take
place (Girdhari Singh vs Neeladhar Singh 35 ).
(x) Miscellaneous cases. The following agreements have also been held
to be against public policy:
(a) Agreements "tending to create monopolies" are illegal and void
(Kameshwar Singh vs Yasin Khan 36 ).
(b) Agreements to defraud revenue authorities are void and illegal. For
example, an agreement by which an employee was to get, in addition to salary,
an expense allowance grossly in excess of the expenses actually incurred by
him, was held illegal because the provision as to expenses was contrary to
public policy being merely a device to defraud the income-tax authorities
(Napeier vs National Business Agency Ltd. 37).
(c) Agreements whereby money is given to induce persons to give evi-
dences in a civil court are void because every one is expected to perform his
legal duty (Adhiraja Shatty vs Vitti/ Bhatta38 ).
Object or Consideration Unlawful in Part
Section 23 (already discussed) deals with cases in which object or/and
consideration is wholly illegal. But what is the position if the same agreement
contains both legal and illegal terms, i.e., it is partly legal and partly illegal?
Sections 24, 57 and 58 of the Contract Act provide for such cases. Accordingly,
if the object or consideration is partially unlawful, the following rules will apply:
1. When an agreement contains several distinct promises to do things
legal and also other things illegal, and the legal part cannot be separated from
the illegal part (i.e., the consideration for different promises is a single sum of
money), the whole agreement is illegal and void (Sec. 24).
ILLUSTRATIONS. (a) A , promises to superintend, on behalf of B, a legal
manufacture of indigo and an illegal traffic in other articles. B promises to pay to
A a salary oftI0,000 a year. The agreement is void and unlawful. Here a part of
the object is legal and a part is illegal which are not severable because the
consideration for both promises is a single sum ofmoney (Illustration to Sec. 24).
(b) A , agrees to serve Bas his housekeeper and also to live in adultery with him
at a fixed salary. The whole agreement is unlawful and void. A cannot sue even for
service rendered as housekeeper because it cannot be ascertained as to what was
due on account of adulterous intercourse and what was due for housekeeping
(Alice Hill vs William Clarke 39 ).
2. Where there is reciprocal promise to do things legal and also other

34. (1949), A.I.R. Pat. 250. 35. (1912), 16 I.C. 1004.

36. (1938), Pat. 473. 37. (1951), 2 All. E.R. 264.
38. (1914), A.LR. Mad. 366. 39. (1905), 27 All, 266.

92

.,J I I J
 LEGALITY OF" OBJECT AND CONSIDERATION

things illegal, and the legal part can be separated from the illegal part (i.e. , there
is a separate consideration for different promises), the legal part is a contract
and the illegal part is a void agreement (Sec. 57).
ILLUSTRATION. A and B agree that A shall sell Ba house fortl0,000, but that,
if Buses it is as a gambling house, he shall pay A t50,000 for it. The first set of
reciprocal promises, namely, to sell the house and to pay tI0,000 for it, is a
contract. The second set is for an unlawful object, namely, that B may use the
house as a gambling house, and is a void and illegal agreement. (Illustration to
Section 57). Here it is to be noted that the two promises are distinct and severable
with a separate consideration for each such promise. The promises are thus
independent of each other except that they form part of the same contract.
3. In the case of an alternative promise, one branch of which is legal and
the other illegal, the legal branch alone can be enforced (Sec. 58).
ILLUSTRATION. A and B agree that A shall pay B n ,000 for which B shall
afterwards deliver to A either rice or smuggled opium. This is a valid contract
to deliver rice and a void and unlawful agreement as to opium (Illustration to
Section 58).

Effect of Illegal Agreements on Collateral Transactions

While discussing different kinds of contracts in Chapter 1 we have already
seen that an ' illegal agreement' like the 'void agreement' is unenforceable as
between the immediate parties. But an ' illegal agreement' has this further effect
that other transactions which are incidental or collateral to it are also tainted
with illegality and, therefore, are not enforceable, provided the parties to the
collateral transaction had the knowledge of the illegal or immoral design of the
main or primary agreement ( a void agreement does not invalidate collateral
transaction40) .
ILLUSTRATIONS. (a) A, enters into a smuggling of goods agreement with B
and borrows tl ,000 from C for giving an advance to B. C cannot recover the
money lent if he knew the illegal purpose, because his loan agreement was a
collateral transaction to an illegal agreement. Of course if C did not know the
purpose of the loan, he can recover even though A had used the money for an
illegal object.
(b) A bets on a horse race with Band borrows t500 from C for this purpose. C
can always recover the money lent, whether he knew the purpose ofloan or not,
because his loan agreement was collateral to a void (wagering) agreement only.
No restitution is allowed. Parties to an illegal agreement cannot get any
help from a court oflaw, for, "no polluted hand shall touch the pure fountain of
justice." So, nothing can be recovered under an illegal agreement and if some-
thing has been paid it cannot be recovered back, whether the illegal object has

40 . ' Illegal' and ' Void' agreements have been distinguished in detail in Chapter 1 under the
heading " illegal and Void Agreements Distinguished."

93

C. I I j
 LAW OF" CONTRACT

been carried out or has not been carried out, is immaterial. The rule oflaw is that
"no action is allowed on an illegal agreemenl" and " in case of equal guilt, the
position of the defendant is better than that of the plaintiff."
ILLUSTRATION. X promises Y to pay fl0,000 if he murders Z. If Y commits
the murder, he cannot recover the amount from X. If X has already paid the
amount and Y fails in murdering Z, X cannot recover the amount back.

TEST QUESTIONS
1. In what cases the object and consideration of an agreement are said to be
unlawful under the Contract Act? Illustrate with examples.
2. What do you understand by an illegal agreement? What is the effect of illegal
agreements on collateral transactions?
3. "An agreement is illegal and shall not be enforced if the court regards it as
immoral." Comment.
4. Discuss the doctrine of public policy. Name the various types of agreements
which are considered to be opposed to public policy. Are the categories of public policy
closed?
5. Examine the validity of agreements with consideration and object unlawful in
part.

PRACTICAL PROBLEMS
Attempt the following problems, giving reasons for your answers:
1. A promises to pay a certain sum of money to B, who is an intended witness in
a suit against A, in consideration ofB's absenting himselfat the trial. B absents but fails
to get the money. Can he recover?
[Hint. B cannot recover the money because an agreement which tends to create a
conflict between interest and duty is illegal and void being opposed to public policy.]
2. In a suit by A against B for the recovery of tS,000, A is in need of money C
agrees to provide funds to A in consideration of sharing one-fourth of the money
recovered from B. Decide the validity of the agreement between C and A.
[Hint. The agreement between C and A is valid. It is a champertous agreement
which is valid provided its terms are fair and reasonable and is made with a bona.fide
object of assisting a just claim.]
3. A, while his wife B was alive, promised to marry C in the event of B' s death.
Subsequently B died but A refused to marry. C sues A for damages for breach of
promise. Decide.
[Hint. C will not succeed because an agreement for future marriage, after the death
of first wife is against good public morals and hence illegal and void (Wilson vs Carnley,
1908, 1 K.B. 729)].
4. A , entered into an agreement withB and engagedB for the purpose of performing
puja (prayer) for A 's success in a suit which he had before the court and promised to
pay ~2,000 in the event of success. A succeeded in the suit. B sued A for the amount
agreed upon. Will B succeed?
[Hint. No, B will not succeed as the object ofthe agreement is to interfere with the

94

t J
 LEGALITY OF" 0B.JECT AND CONSIDERATION

course ofjustice, making the agreement illegal and void. It has been held that where the
o bjcct ofan agreement is to exercise some extraneous infl ucncc, unauthorised by law, on
the mind of the court, the agreement is contrary to public policy and hence void
[Bhagwan Datt Shastri vs Raja Ram, (1927) All. 406]. However, in Balasundara
Mudaliar vs Mohamed Usman , A.I.R. (1929) Mad. 812, a promise of reward by a
Muslim litigant to a Hindu devotee in consideration of offering prayers for the success
of his suit has been held not against public policy. Thus accordingly the agreement
between A and B is valid and B must succeed.]

95