1. The appellant (Missing text)lent a cooly Rs. 26 and got him and his son to execute a bond that in order to discharge the interest on this amount, the latter would work for him at Rs 2 8-0, a month. He obtained a year's work from the son and now sues for the principal and Rs. 34 by way of interest.
2. The District Munsif works out the rate of interest at about Rs. 175 per annum; so the year's service afforded the appellant handsome remuneration.
3. The lower Courts have found that the contract was opposed to public policy and I agree. Whether the bond in question is exactly of the nature of a slavery bond, or is something closely approaching that nature does not affect the matter; for in either case it is equally opposed to public policy. If following Anandiram v. Gozhakachari  27 C. L. J. 459 it is held that one of the parties to the bond was left free to earn money in order to pay back the principal, thus distinguishing the case from Ram Sarup Bhagat v. Bansi Mandar  42 Cal. 742 still some one had to support the son for whom the appellant's niggardly wage of Rs. 2-8-0 was quite inadequate and presumably the father's wage would be employed for that purpose. The learned District Judge was wrong in rejecting the last paragraph of the bond as being in different ink when no one had questioned its genuineness but that does not affect his judgment.
4. The appeal is dismissed with costs.