Satish Chandra Ghosh vs Kashi Sahu

Mullick, J.—The plaintiff appears to be a landlord and defendants Nos. 1 and 2 to be labourers who have executed in favour of the plaintiff a bond with somewhat curious terms, while defendant No. 3 appears to have been impleaded as a member of the joint family to which defendants Nos. 1 and 2 belong.

The bond is for a principal sum of Rs. 10 with interest at half an anna per rupee per mensem, i.e., at 37 1/2 per cent. per annum. The second executant at the same time promised to work for the plaintiff without pay for a period of two years from the date of the bond, that is to say, from the 3rd of September 1911 till the 2nd of September 1913, on which date the bond was to become payable. The words in which the promise is expressed are as follows:

I, Chaudhry Sahu, will remain all along in attendance and do the agricultural and other works of the aforesaid Ghosh and will never remain absent from duty. If I be absent from the work the aforesaid Ghosh will be competent to recover the whole amount mentioned in the bond together with interest calculated at the rate of 1 anna per rupee per mensem without any consideration and without waiting for the expiry of the due date from the person and property of us (the executants).

It is admitted that the second executant has not worked for the plaintiff for a single day and the present suit was brought on the 2nd of September 1916 for the principal sum with interest at the enhanced rate.

Now, it is quite clear that the bond is what is locally known as a "slavery bond" and is very similar to that which was the subject of discussion in Ram Sarup Bhagat v. Bansi Mandar 30 Ind. Cas. 955 : 19 C.W.N. 1118 : 42 C. 742. In our opinion a contract is wholly void in which a labourer engages to work without any payment whatsoever under conditions that make it practically impossible for him to discharge the debt until some other capitalist redeems him. Such a contract is indistinguishable from slavery and in practice compels the debtor and his descendants to a perpetual serfdom.

But the learned Vakil for the plaintiff urges that although the condition with regard to the labour may be illegal and void, that part of the contract which provides for the payment of interest on money lent is enforceable. In my opinion the contract is indivisible and it is impossible to separate the legal part of the consideration from the illegal part. Therefore, u/s 24 of the Indian Contract Act the whole contract is void.

Next, there is the question of limitation. The condition of the bond being an agreement to labour, time began to run against the plaintiff on the first day of the default to labour, that is to say, on the 3rd day of September 1911. The general principle that time begins to run from the earliest date, applicable to cases of instalment bonds under Article 75 of the Indian Limitation Act, is also applicable to cases of contracts which are subject to a condition. Therefore, as time began to run from the 3rd of September 1911, and as the suit was not brought till the 2nd of September 1916, it is clearly barred.

On both grounds, therefore, the plaintiff''s suit was rightly dismissed and this application for revision must be dismissed with costs.

Thornhill, J.

I agree.