Hoode Venkataramanayya vs J.M. Lobo

Govinda Menon, J.—The learned Subordinate Judge finds as a question of fact that the petitioner paid Rs. 550 to the mother of D.W. 1

only for the sake of continuing1 as shanbhogue and in consideration of D.W. 1 not reverting to that post. On that finding the question is whether the

''kaikagada'' suffers from the infirmity mentioned in Section 23, Contract Act as being opposed to public policy. It has been held in -''Swaminatha

Aiyer v. Muthusami Pillai'', 30 Mad 530(A), that an undertaking to pay money to a public servant to induce him to retire and thus make way for

the appointment of the promisor is practically trafficking in office and as such void u/s 23, Contract Act. Here a sum of money was paid to the

mother of the previous sharbhogue in order that the shanbhogue should not revert to the office. The decision in 30 Mad 530(A), applies to the

facts of the present case. But Mr. Nambiar contends that this deference was not raised in the reply to the lawyer''s notice. Even if that is so, when

once it is found on the evidence, which cannot be disputed here, that the money was paid as consideration for an object, which is opposed to

public policy, it cannot be said that the learned Judge erred in dismissing the suit. The civil revision petition is, therefore, dismissed with costs.