Skip to content


Anandi Prasad and anr. Vs. Dan Bahadur Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtAllahabad High Court
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1896)ILR18All435
AppellantAnandi Prasad and anr.
RespondentDan Bahadur Singh
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, section 257a - execution of decree--agreement to give time to the judgment-debtor--agreement not sanctioned by the court. - - that court bad no opportunity to consider the agreement, and in fact never did deem the consideration to be under the circumstances of the case reasonable......of the code of civil procedure, and an agreement which under the circumstances of the case was void. the plaintiffs cannot recover on the hundi. if they did, the court would be allowing them to enforce an agreement by obtaining the consideration therefor when the legislature has declared such an agreement to be void. the district judge considered that the decision of the calcutta high court in hukum chand oswal v. taharunnissa bibi i.l.r. 16 cal. 504, applied. so it did apply, but we entirely dissent from the view of the law therein expounded. where the legislature has thought right to declare an agreement void, unless the legislature expressly limits the application of its enactment, courts are bound to give effect to it. there is no such limitation to be found in section 257a. we.....
Judgment:

John Edge, Kt., C.J. and Blennerhassett, J.

1. This was a suit on a hundi given by the defendant to the plaintiffs for Rs. 1,500. The plaintiffs in a previous suit had sued the defendant on a bond and had claimed a large amount for interest amongst other things. A sum of Rs. 1,500 which they claimed for interest was disallowed on the ground that the claim for interest was barred by limitation. After the decree was passed the defendant asked the plaintiffs to give him time to satisfy the amount decreed. They refused, except on the condition that the defendant gave them a hundi for the amount of their claim which was held to have been time-barred, viz., 1,500. The defendant agreed to those terms. The plaintiffs agreed to give time. On those terms the hundi in question was given, and is now sued on. It was a hundi given as the consideration for an agreement to give time for the satisfaction of judgment-debt. The agreement was made without the sanction of the Court which passed the decree. That Court bad no opportunity to consider the agreement, and in fact never did deem the consideration to be under the circumstances of the case reasonable. It was an agreement falling within the first clause of Section 257A of the Code of Civil Procedure, and an agreement which under the circumstances of the case was void. The plaintiffs cannot recover on the hundi. If they did, the Court would be allowing them to enforce an agreement by obtaining the consideration therefor when the Legislature has declared such an agreement to be void. The District Judge considered that the decision of the Calcutta High Court in Hukum Chand Oswal v. Taharunnissa Bibi I.L.R. 16 Cal. 504, applied. So it did apply, but we entirely dissent from the view of the law therein expounded. Where the Legislature has thought right to declare an agreement void, unless the Legislature expressly limits the application of its enactment, Courts are bound to give effect to it. There is no such limitation to be found in Section 257A. We allow the appeal with costs in all Courts and dismiss the suit.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //