Ajodhya Jha and Others vs Mr. H.E. Cox and Another

In this case the opposite party were plaintiffs on hand-notes given by tenants of an indigo concern in Champaran for what is known as Tawan, a sum paid by a ryot to avoid a real or imaginary obligation to grow indigo on a certain proportion of his holding. Mr. Rajendra Prasad for the petitioners contends that such hand-notes are without consideration, and he urges us to go into the legal question in each case, whether the obligation to grow indigo actually subsisted or not at the time of the taking of the hand-note. We are not prepared to accept this view of the case. It is sufficient to quote the leading text-books; Pollock on Contract u/s 25 says: "If an intending litigant bona fide forbears a right to litigate a question of law or fact which it is not vexatious or frivolous to litigate, he does give up something of value. It is a mistake to suppose it is not an advantage, which a suitor is capable of appreciating, to be able to litigate his claim, even if he turns out to be wrong." And on Section 2, Cunningham and Shephard state the law to be that "When doubtful questions of law or of fact have arisen between two persons, and each of them has agreed to waive what he honestly believes to be his lawful claim in whole-or in part, the transaction amounts to a compromise; the waiver or abandonment on either side furnishes the Consideration. Provided that they both had equal knowledge of the facts and equally opportunities of ascertaining their rights, the com-premise is valid, notwithstanding that they may both have been under a mistake as to a question law." The only question, therefore, which we have to examine is whether Mr. Cox, the Manager of the factory, on the one hand and the tenants on the other hand believed, in good faith in the existence of an obligation to grow indigo and whether. Mr. Cox in the matter of We knowledge had any unfair advantage over them. The learned Munsif has found as a fact that Mr. Cox''s bare statement that the tenants were liable to grow indigo is sufficient proof of their liability. He has also found that the tenants also believed in this right; for if they had hot so believed they would not have insisted on getting written releases from the factory from the obligation. On reading Mr Cox'' evidence we see that it was the tenants themselves who came to him with the suggestion that they should pay cash for the abandonment of this real or supposed right and that half of his tenants actually. paid in cash, hand-notes being taken only from those who could not pay up in one lamp sum the whole consideration for the abandonment of the obligation. Whatever may have been the real rights of the parties at the time when these contracts were made, there is nothing to suggest that there was any undue advantage or fraud on the side of the plaintiffs. There is nothing in the decision of the learned Small Cause Court Judge with which we can interfere as a question of law. The applications are rejected with costs, hearing fee one gold mohur in each case.