Skip to content


islam Fatima and ors. Vs. Pothi Ram and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectContract
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1915)ILR37All212
Appellantislam Fatima and ors.
RespondentPothi Ram and ors.
Excerpt:
act no. ix of 1872 (indian contract act), section 27 - agreement in restraint of trade--mutual agreement between two neighbouring land-owners not to hold cattle markets on the same day. - .....for trial on the merits. the question is whether the owner of land entering into an agreement with the owner of neighbouring land, to the effect that a market for sale of cattle shall not be held on the same day on the lands of both of them is entering into an agreement which is void under section 27 aforesaid. it seems to us that a landlord who, in return for market tolls or fees, allows a cattle-market to be conducted on his land is not thereby exercising the trade or business of selling cattle. if he is exercising any business at all, he is exercising the business of a land-holder, and the agreement on his part not to allow his land to be used for some particular purpose on some particular day is not an agreement restraining him from exercising his lawful profession, trade or.....
Judgment:

Chamier and Piggott, JJ.

1. The question raised by this appeal is the applicability of the principle laid down in Section 27 of the Indian Contract Act (IX of 1872) to the circumstances of this particular case. It is alleged that the defendants, who are land-holders, had entered into a contract with certain neighbouring land-holders, as to the holding of markets on their respective lands. The plaintiffs sued for enforcement of this contract and for damages. The first court threw out the case on the finding that the agreement' was void, in that it was an agreement restraining the defendants from exercising a lawful profession, trade or business, and that, consequently, it was not necessary to go into any of the other questions raised by the pleadings. The lower appellate court has reversed this decision and remanded the case for trial on the merits. The question is whether the owner of land entering into an agreement with the owner of neighbouring land, to the effect that a market for sale of cattle shall not be held on the same day on the lands of both of them is entering into an agreement which is void under Section 27 aforesaid. It seems to us that a landlord who, in return for market tolls or fees, allows a cattle-market to be conducted on his land is not thereby exercising the trade or business of selling cattle. If he is exercising any business at all, he is exercising the business of a land-holder, and the agreement on his part not to allow his land to be used for some particular purpose on some particular day is not an agreement restraining him from exercising his lawful profession, trade or business. These considerations are sufficient to dispose of this. It is accordingly dismissed.


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