Must i get this agreement registered or not?
Rinu
(Querist) 24 September 2015
This query is : Resolved
I am a Naredeco Certified Realtor. One of my client's land had been acquired 50 years back. According to him no compensation received. I checked the records and found him right.
Now he has offered to hire me either to get the land back or get the compensation from the Govt. To which I have agreed upon.
I have prepared an agreement,
The gist is, he will pay me a certain percentage of the benefits, whatsoever he gets from the Govt.
If he gets back the same land back or any other land, he will sell this property in the open market and then will pay my fee and if he gets some cash in compensation then he will pay my fee on the same day of the receipt.
Now the dilemma is , should I get this agreement registered or even the unregistered one will suffice?
I tried to understand by researching on internet and got this---
Indian Registration Act 1908
17. Documents of which registration is compulsory
(1) The following documents shall be registered, if the property to which they relate is situate in a district in which, and if they have been executed on or after the date on which, Act No. XVI of 1864, or the Indian Registration Act, 1866, or the Indian Registration Act, 1871, or the Indian Registration Act, 1877 or this Act came or comes into force, namely:-
(b) other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees, and upwards, to or in immovable property.
BUT COULD MAKE NO HEAD NO TAIL.
KINDLY GUIDE.
Sri Vijayan.A
(Expert) 24 September 2015
In your case, it is better to have the agreement registered.
Application of Sec.17 or 18 depends on the state where the property is.
Sub Registrar may hesitate to register the agreement with conditional clause. you may have to convince him.
To get back the land, you need the following details:
1. Which department acquired the land?
2. For which purpose the land was acquired?
3. When it was acquired?
4. Whether the purpose of acquisition is fulfilled?
5. Whether the land is not required for the purpose/ project?
If every answer to the above is in your favour, you can proceed for reconveyance of land from the govt.
otherwise,
you can process for compensation amount.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 24 September 2015
Expert Mr. Sri Vijayan.A has guided you well.
It has been illustrated in other thread initiated by you, that an agreement should preferably be registered, at:
http://www.lawyersclubindia.com/experts/Delhi-govt-says-agreement-to-sell-registration-is-mandatory-clarify-plz-559156.asp
You are providing some kind of service and are promised some kind of compensation in lieu of it.............
Rajendra K Goyal
(Expert) 24 September 2015
Registered agreement would be better.
Rinu
(Querist) 24 September 2015
I am really thankful to all of you sir, especially to Sri Vijayan.
Rinu
(Querist) 24 September 2015
Kumar Doab, sir, kindly see clearly that was quite a different question.
An agreement to sell is different than a Contingent Contract.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 24 September 2015
In both the threads mentioned by you and other threads posted by you, you have been advised properly and precisely.
What makes you feel that both of your queries have not been seen clearly or we are not aware of What is a contract or the one as Contingent Contract.
While you post queries you must ensure that unwarranted and unnecessary comments are avoided, by you ,in all threads.
Rinu
(Querist) 25 September 2015
Kumar Doab, sir, I have already said that I am thankful for all the advisers.
Have not I?
Perhaps you did not even read my question sir.
Every documents should be registered, if possible. It is so simple.
This was not the full question at all.
One part of the question was whether an agreement prepared by me, if unregistered will suffice?
And agreement to sell is entirely different matter and Contingent Agreements are quite different. This thread is regarding Contingent agreement. A sweeping statement that every agreement should be registered does not serve any purpose. I have already explained that I am Certified realtor. this much is quite a general statement that every agreement should be registered. No, this was not a significant way of replying.
Next time when you reply, kindly keep in mind that unwarranted comments must be avoided by you in all threads.
Rinu
(Querist) 25 September 2015
My perception is experts here at LCI, though very much knowledgeable and helpful become irritated very easily.
Instead of replying or not to replying they start alleging the questioner.
Better change the attitude sir and Madams.
Thanks a lot.
Anirudh
(Expert) 25 September 2015
Without entering into any other debate or discussion, I just want to indicate that the kind of agreement that is being talked about in this thread is called "Champerty" is illegal in India.
Therefore, in my view even if the Agreement is registered (because Sub-Registrar is not bothered whether the same can be registered or not) it will not be considered by the Courts.
As I said at the beginning, it is my understanding of the subject. While I will stand corrected in case any other expert has any other views, I will not be entering into any discussion/debate on this issue.
Guest
(Expert) 25 September 2015
Dear Anirudh,
You may perhaps like to review your opinion with specific reference to section 32 of the contract act.
In my views a champerty happens only when a law suit is filed in a court of law for enorcement of the agreement in a contingent contract without the event actually happens that pertains to agreement. Here it is not a case of law suit, but just a case of entering in to an agreement to a contingent contract with the question whether should be registered or not.
Anirudh
(Expert) 25 September 2015
Dear Mr. Dhingra,
I must point out that the agreement in question does not fall under the 'Contingent Contracts' envisaged in the Indian Contract Act.
Rather under the public policy of India.
In India, an agreement by a client to pay his lawyer according to the result of the case is considered and held to be opposed to public policy and therefore void.
If the litigant (plaintiff) is being helped by a financier to pursue the litigation, the said financier can expect to recover the amount of principal plus reasonable interest thereon. But to seek a share from the result, is considered unreasonable and therefore held to be void.
My answer is based on decided cases.
Rinu
(Querist) 29 September 2015
Anirudh ji and PS Dhingra ji, sirs, I am not a lawyer.
For lawyers I know as per best of my knowledge, it is illegal to enter into such an agreement.
But for a commoner, it is not illegal, as per best of my knowledge.
And I am not only to bear expenses but use my real estate expertise, invest my time.
I understand that such Agreements fall under "Contingent Contracts".
This is agreement will be enforcible in case I succeed in getting the acquired land back or getting the compensation, otherwise it will not be enforcible.
Kindly advise further please.
Rinu
(Querist) 29 September 2015
Again I wanna express my thanks to all the knowledgeable experts here at LCI, kindly help further
Anirudh
(Expert) 29 September 2015
I am not sure whether you understood my following reply, which will squarely apply to your situation.
"If the litigant (plaintiff) is being helped by a financier to pursue the litigation, the said financier can expect to recover the amount of principal plus reasonable interest thereon. But to seek a share from the result, is considered unreasonable and therefore held to be void."
The above will not be a hindrance to get the Agreement registered. But, the settled legal position will not allow the agreement to be enforced in a legal forum.
Guest
(Expert) 29 September 2015
Ms. Rinu,
Your statement, "For lawyers I know as per best of my knowledge, it is illegal to enter into such an agreement. But for a commoner, it is not illegal, as per best of my knowledge," is strange!
If you think law is different forlawyers and commoners and were expecting opinions from experts, according to your own perception about commoners, you have come at a wrong place, as any expert at the LCI should not have been expected to give opinion outside the provisions of law, which you consider only for lawyers.
Guest
(Expert) 29 September 2015
Dear Shri Anirudh,
As per your post of four days ago, if you believe that the public policy of India is formulated outside the scope of laws of the land, I may not be able to subscribe your views.
Rinu
(Querist) 29 September 2015
By reply of Mr. Anirudh, I got inspired to Google and found a judgement. Presenting some excerpts here and the link to the judgement in the end----
"Champerty and maintenance means an agreement between the claimant in a litigation and a party unrelated to the litigation under which the unrelated party agrees to maintain and support the litigation on condition that the fruits of the litigation will be shared between them. In England, champerty and champertous agreement are illegal. But in India, an agreement between a party to the litigation and between another person who is not a party to the litigation to share fruits of the litigation does not become illegal for the sole reason that the agreement is champertous."
MR. ANIRUDH KINLDY NOTE THAT HERE IT WRITTEN "TO SHARE THE FRUITS OF THE LITIGATION"
Rinu
(Querist) 29 September 2015
Further the same judgement says,"At the same time, if it is revealed that the object of the agreement is illegal or if the conditions of the agreement are violative of the principles of equity, justice and good conscience or the agreement discloses an unconscionable bargain, then, the courts in India will certainly find the champertous agreement to be illegal and refuse to enforce the same."
MR.ANIRUDH, KINDLY NOTICE THAT THE WORDS ABOVE SAY THAT THE BARGAIN SHOULD NOT BE "UNCONSCIONABLE".
Rinu
(Querist) 29 September 2015
ESPECIALLY FOR MR DHINGRA,
The same judgement says further,"A Division Bench of this Court consisting of M.S.Menon, J. (as His Lordship then was) and T.K.Joseph, J. considered the question as to whether Champerty agreements are illegal in India and also whether rules of English law against Champerty and maintenance apply in India in considerable detail. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 S.C. 557 their Lordships held that if no Advocates are involved in the agreement, the agreement does not become illegal or enforcible in India for the only reason that the same is Champerty."
Rinu
(Querist) 29 September 2015
"The agreement which was considered by the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 S.C. 557 was an agreement between an Advocate and a litigating claimant under which it was agreed that the entire litigation will be financed and conducted by the Advocate without claiming any charges in advance but once the fruits of the litigation are realised, the Advocate will be given 50% of the same. The Supreme Court did not enforce the agreement noticing that an advocate was involved. While refusing to enforce that agreement that the agreement was between the claimant and the somebody who was not an Advocate, then the agreement would have been upheld and enforced"
HERE THE JUDGEMENT CLEARLY SAYS THAT IF SUCH AGREEMENTS ARE BETWEEN A NON-ADVOCATE AND CLAIMANT THEN IT WILL BE ENFORCEABLE EVEN IF 50% OF THE FRUIT OF THE SUIT IS SHARED.
Rinu
(Querist) 29 September 2015
MR DHINGRA, THE JUDGEMENT FURTHER SAYS,"The Supreme Court did not enforce the agreement noticing that an advocate was involved.While refusing to enforce that agreement that the agreement was between the claimant and the somebody who was not an Advocate, then the agreement would have been upheld and enforced. "
SEE THAT THE JUDGEMENT IS DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A NON-ADVOCATE AND IT IS CITING SUPREME COURT.
Rinu
(Querist) 29 September 2015
"But the distinction between the law in England and the Indian law regarding Champerty agreements is that while in England Champerty agreements, whoever the parties to the same are, are per se illegal in India such agreements become per se illegal only if Advocates are involved"
SEE THAT THE JUDGEMENT IS DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A NON-ADVOCATE AND IT IS CITING SUPREME COURT.
Rinu
(Querist) 29 September 2015
"However, having regard to the law in India relating to the Champerty agreements, any agreement between a lawyer and a client for payment of the fruits of an award or decree or payment of a portion of the fruits of an award or a decree as consideration for the lawyers financing the litigation or conducting the litigation by way of Advocate fees or other charges will be found illegal and will not be enforced in any court."
SEE THAT THE JUDGEMENT IS DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A NON-ADVOCATE AND IT IS CITING SUPREME COURT.
Anirudh
(Expert) 29 September 2015
If you are clear, I have no issues. After all it is you who will be financing, and it is you who would be trying to enforce the Agreement. Time will tell.
In any case, you will appreciate that, unlike others, I have not treated your query as simplicitor registration issue, rather precisely addressed the issue raised by you, on a different plane.
Rinu
(Querist) 29 September 2015
Mr Anirudh, see I am thankful from the core of my hearth for your participation.
You have mentioned somewhere above that your opinion is based on some judgments, so I tried to find out on my own and came across this one.
I think we all here to understand an issue in the best way.
I need your further advice. I wanna you to explain , how come you say that only principle investment and some interest can be regained.?
Help plz
Here is the judgement---
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/999788/
kindly help further.
Guest
(Expert) 29 September 2015
Ms. Rinu,
You seemed to have addressed me as if you have mistaken me to have considered your agreement as void or illegal. So, would you please point out if I have ever mentioned anywhere that your agreement is void or illegal?
I simply raised the question about your two different definitions for law for the lawyers and the commoners. Law cannot be expected to discriminate between two different category of citizens (a commoner and a lawyer) of the democratic India.
A PERTINENT QUESTION ARISES, if an agreement between two commoners can hold good, why not between a commoner and a lawyer in the eyes of law?
You are talking about judgment of 1954, when the impact of the British Raj was still prevalent in India. Moreover, the judgment relates to the year 1954, but initiation of litigation cannot be assumed to pertain to the post independence era, as several years would have taken to reach the level of the Supreme Court of India after trial in the lower court through different review/ appellate/ High Courts. Till January 1950 all the cases were being tried on the perceptions of British Raj. Needless to emphasize, all the Supreme Court Judges of that time had been accustomed to the law system/ perceptions of the British Rule having been elevated from the lower courts and HCs, all having followed pre-independence systems till 1950.
So, the case law of 61 year old pertaining to 1954 is quite doubtful to hold good in present days. Also, public policy cannot be different from the provisions of law that can hold the well laid law at bay.
Opinions differ from person to person, judge to judge from time to time. At least I don't prefer to follow conventions that are considered above the well laid laws of the land.
Rinu
(Querist) 29 September 2015
Dhingra ji, a few points---
1) I am an admirer of yours, I have met you at your Rohini place once, paid you for your advice and found you very helpful.
2) I do understand no expert may be perfect, opinions may differ, should be taken lightly. We are here to understand issues in depth.
3) Sir, the case-law I presented was of 2007. Kindly recheck.
Rinu
(Querist) 29 September 2015
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/999788/
Guest
(Expert) 29 September 2015
Ms. Rinu,
Don't forget that any case law has no universal application for all types of cases, with different characteristics, facts and circumstances with specific reference to the intentions of the agreement for the purpose of execution. For example, your quoted case law very clearly states, "An agreement between two persons to commit fraud on a third party is void." So on the given facts by you, how any one can assume whether the agreement is entered in to with some clear intentions to get justice or to commit a fraud against some other party.
Probably, you forgot that your basic question was whether to get your agreement registered or not, i.e., the very preliminary stage of the case. Contrarily, you have referred the case law pertaining to the execution of an award already made in a specific case in disregard of the agreement, i.e., the final stage of the activity and with several other debilities/ flaws, i.e, non-equity of assignment of rights, revokation of POA by the executor, passing away of the party to agreement during pendency of the E.P., mon-admissibility of evidence in view of sec. 19 of the Registration Act read with Section 49 of the same Act, etc., besides the execution court having gone beyond the scope of its jurisdiction to uphold a plea.
So, neither implication of any case law is dependant on reading between the lines, nor the referred case law can be applied in your query related case at its very initial stage of agreement.
Needless to emphasize, the case has to be seen in totality of the facts, characteristics, circumstances, legality of documents, and other relevant aspects of law specifically applicable to the case specific. So far as chaperty is concerned the stage of consideration depends upon the completion of sequence of events depending upon the characteristics, circumstances and the facts of the events after their happening. So, that cannot be anticipated before hand. You must have seen in my post addressed to Shri Anirudh, where I expressed my opinion that champerty happens only when a law suit is filed in a court of law for enorcement of the agreement in a contingent contract without the event actually happens that pertains to agreement.
Rinu
(Querist) 29 September 2015
Dhingra sir, kindly go through that judgement, the judge declined the case of the claimant even after he succeed in helping someone in getting a compensation of Rs.53 lakh against a land acquisition.
Sir, after an eye opener participation of Mr Anirudh, now the main question arises whether my agreement will be considered Champertous?
Registered or not, that is a secondary issue.
Help please.
Guest
(Expert) 30 September 2015
Ms. Rinu,
I WONDER TO KNOW, your question was about the initial stage of any contract, which has not yet started taking place, whereas you have now asked about the hypothetical end point of the jugment stage that too as if you have already filed a case even in the highest court of the country.
If you want to discuss merits and demerits based on the referred case, mere the final jusgment cannot b the criteria. In that case complete background has to be gone through for the purpose of which you will have to provide me complete case related documents along with that of the lower court case, including the copy of award and will have to discuss in person by taking personal appointment. Otherwise, there is no use of stretching the thread unduly too ong.
IF YOU ARE SKEPTICAL OR SHAKY ABOUT HONOUR OF YOUR AGREEMENT, why do you prefer to venture for such a contract? Risk is always attached in any business. You have to weigh the pros & cons yourself, not anyone else, who is not the aware about the real background of the case.
However, according to me, this is not the stage, when your agreement can be termed as champertous. At the present stage your agreement can only be termed as a contingent agreement, which is subject to the events taking place in which way, with what intentions and morality of actions, under which circumstances and with what end result that too if the agreement is not actually honoured by the other party and you have to take recourse to the litigations.
So, nobody can predict just now at its preliminary stage whether your agreement can or cannot become champertous, and if that be at which occasion depending upon the nature of events that can tend to become champertous, if not honoured for any reason and compels you to file a suit for execution.
So, any analysis on your hypothetical thinking can be possible only after detailed examination of the proposal in detail.
I have already stated, you have to weight all the pros & cons by yourself before entering in to such a contingent agreement. If not able to make any headway, better consult some expert in person and discuss the matter in detail to arrive at a final decision,whether to enter in to the contract or not.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 01 October 2015
An interesting and informative debate by the learned experts on the subject query. Well it is the author to think about next course of action based on the elaborate discussion and suggestions made by expert Mr. Dhingra.
Guest
(Expert) 01 October 2015
A Good Self Appreciation by Anirudh in their Last Post.
Rinu
(Querist) 05 October 2015
Dear Experts, I do understand that Mr. Anirudh proved most helpful here and he deserves the appriciation.
Also I do not feel anything wrong in estimating self value.
Suppose I am wearing a red shirt and I state that I am wearing a red shirt, what is wrong in it?
Similarly I do know that I am good at so many things and if I state this, nothing wrong there.
Rinu
(Querist) 05 October 2015
Now about the question and replies.
I do know now that the Agreement I am gonna enter is a Champerty Agreement.
There is no settled law but only some case-laws (Judgements).
The latest I could find, I have given here above.
Which declares that an advocate cannot enter into Champerty agreement considerable.
But for me, I have learnt that I will enter into such agreements but will keep the share below 25 percent.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 October 2015
Champerty is VOID in common law but VOIDABLE in India provided junction is not an advocate who is barred from entering into such contracts because of law and rules of the Bar council.
But one should take a great care of section 6 and 130 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Rinu
(Querist) 05 October 2015
Prabhakar sir, What I understood is Champerty agreement is VOID, only if an advocate wanna take benefit of the suit other than his/her fee, through this agreement.
Otherwise it is quite a valid deed provided share in the benefit of the suit going to the the Financier/ Helper/ Guide/any kinda outsider Assistant is not unconscionable.
And in support of my words, I have already given a judgement of year 2007 above.
Rinu
(Querist) 05 October 2015
Second Point Prabhakar sir, No section of "Transfer of property act" outta these 2 are applicable in my deal, as I understand.
Reason, I have clearly mentioned that I am providing a service as well some finances and getting a fee, if the efforts are fruitful.
In other words, if my client gets some property from the Govt, they have full right to sell or keep that property, either way they can pay my settled fee.
No interest in any property from my side.
Rinu
(Querist) 05 October 2015
Third point sir, I am not holding their right to sue, in fact I will assist them to sue the Govt or any other Civic authority to get back the benefits against the said acquisition.
Also I have written in the agreement, that if our mutual efforts remain unfruitful, none of the party will initiate any claim against the other.
Now kindly guide further, all the respected experts.
Rinu
(Querist) 05 October 2015
But I think in general it is very good advice of Mr Prabhakar that section 6 and 130 of the Transfer of Property Act should be taken care of while entering such kinda deal and further while drafting the deed.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 October 2015
Prabhakar sir, What I understood is Champerty agreement is VOID, only if an advocate wanna take benefit of the suit other than his/her fee, through this agreement.
ANSWER!
I SEE YOU CORRECT
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 October 2015
Otherwise it is quite a valid deed provided share in the benefit of the suit going to the the Financier/ Helper/ Guide/any kinda outsider Assistant is not unconscionable.
ANSWER:
YOU ARE NOT CORRECT
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 October 2015
Otherwise it is quite a valid deed provided share in the benefit of the suit going to the the Financier/ Helper/ Guide/any kinda outsider Assistant is not unconscionable.
ANSWER:
YOU ARE NOT CORRECT
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 October 2015
And in support of my words, I have already given a judgement of year 2007 above.
ANSWER:
YOU HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD THE TRUE IMPORT OF THE JUDGEMENT IS MY PLAIN REPLY.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 October 2015
FOR REST OF POSTS, MY REPLY IS HOW TO ESCAPE
WITH REGIOUR OF RULINGS DEPENDS ON HOW A DRAFT IS PREPARED BUT YET YOU CAN NOT IMAGINE HOW A PARTICULAR JUDGE OR A BENCH OF JUDGES WILL BEHAVE AT A RELEVANT TIME.
SO IT IS NOT AN INSURANCE POLICY INSURING DEATH.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 October 2015
LASTLY, I BOW DOWN TO YOU FOR YOUR GENEROSITY SHOWN TOWARDS ME IN YOUR LAST POST.
prabhakar singh
(Expert) 05 October 2015
I AM NOT CLEAR ABOUT YOUR GENDER FROM YOUR NAME.
HENCE RESTRAIN FROM ADDRESSING YOU AS SIR OR/MADAM BUT YET I REQUEST YOU TO VISIT A PRUDENT CHAMBER AS PROBLEM BEFORE YOU CAN BE DEALT IN MANY WAYS WITHOUT INVOLVING ISSUES INVOLVED IN SO CALLED CHAMPERTY.
FOR ME DOORS ARE NOW SHUT FOR ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THIS QUERY.
Rinu
(Querist) 06 October 2015
Prabhakar Sir, you have written,"Otherwise it is quite a valid deed provided share in the benefit of the suit going to the the Financier/ Helper/ Guide/any kinda outsider Assistant is not unconscionable.
ANSWER:
YOU ARE NOT CORRECT"
You have also said,"And in support of my words, I have already given a judgement of year 2007 above.
ANSWER:
YOU HAVE NOT UNDERSTOOD THE TRUE IMPORT OF THE JUDGEMENT IS MY PLAIN REPLY."
Rinu
(Querist) 06 October 2015
Mr. Prabhakar, I am presenting some excerpts of that judgement--
Presenting some excerpts here and the link to the judgement in the end----
"Champerty and maintenance means an agreement between the claimant in a litigation and a party unrelated to the litigation under which the unrelated party agrees to maintain and support the litigation on condition that the fruits of the litigation will be shared between them. In England, champerty and champertous agreement are illegal. But in India, an agreement between a party to the litigation and between another person who is not a party to the litigation to share fruits of the litigation does not become illegal for the sole reason that the agreement is champertous."
Rinu
(Querist) 06 October 2015
Further the same judgement says,"At the same time, if it is revealed that the object of the agreement is illegal or if the conditions of the agreement are violative of the principles of equity, justice and good conscience or the agreement discloses an unconscionable bargain, then, the courts in India will certainly find the champertous agreement to be illegal and refuse to enforce the same."
KINDLY NOTICE THAT THE WORDS ABOVE SAY THAT THE BARGAIN SHOULD NOT BE "UNCONSCIONABLE".
Rinu
(Querist) 06 October 2015
The same judgement says further,"A Division Bench of this Court consisting of M.S.Menon, J. (as His Lordship then was) and T.K.Joseph, J. considered the question as to whether Champerty agreements are illegal in India and also whether rules of English law against Champerty and maintenance apply in India in considerable detail. Following the judgment of the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 S.C. 557 their Lordships held that if no Advocates are involved in the agreement, the agreement does not become illegal or enforcible in India for the only reason that the same is Champerty."
"The agreement which was considered by the Supreme Court in AIR 1954 S.C. 557 was an agreement between an Advocate and a litigating claimant under which it was agreed that the entire litigation will be financed and conducted by the Advocate without claiming any charges in advance but once the fruits of the litigation are realised, the Advocate will be given 50% of the same. The Supreme Court did not enforce the agreement noticing that an advocate was involved. While refusing to enforce that agreement that the agreement was between the claimant and the somebody who was not an Advocate, then the agreement would have been upheld and enforced"
HERE THE JUDGEMENT CLEARLY SAYS THAT IF SUCH AGREEMENTS ARE BETWEEN A NON-ADVOCATE AND CLAIMANT THEN IT WILL BE ENFORCEABLE EVEN IF 50% OF THE FRUIT OF THE SUIT IS SHARED.
Rinu
(Querist) 06 October 2015
THE JUDGEMENT FURTHER SAYS,"The Supreme Court did not enforce the agreement noticing that an advocate was involved.While refusing to enforce that agreement that the agreement was between the claimant and the somebody who was not an Advocate, then the agreement would have been upheld and enforced. "
SEE THAT THE JUDGEMENT IS DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A NON-ADVOCATE AND IT IS CITING SUPREME COURT.
"But the distinction between the law in England and the Indian law regarding Champerty agreements is that while in England Champerty agreements, whoever the parties to the same are, are per se illegal in India such agreements become per se illegal only if Advocates are involved"
SEE THAT THE JUDGEMENT IS DIFFERENTIATING BETWEEN AN ADVOCATE AND A NON-ADVOCATE AND IT IS CITING SUPREME COURT.
Rinu
(Querist) 06 October 2015
Mr Prabhkar, I have re-produced a few excerpts for some particular reasons--
1) Concept of Champerty is based on some case-laws, not on any clear cut law.And I could not find any newer judgement than this one.
2) You have said that I have misunderstood the Judgement, whereas the judgement clearly says that a Champerty agreement is legally enforcible if it is between a client and a Non-advocate person. And whereas the fruit sharing by a third party is not unconscionable.I see that it can be a voidable agreement if the fruit sharing by a third party is unconscionable.
Of-course. I have gone through some other judgements also. Court did not treated an agreement enforceable in which 70% share was to go the third party. Apparently unconscionable. Otherwise there is no other factor by which any Court/ any judgement has ever considered such an agreement voidable.Me too say that such an agreement can be voidable, but only if the share going to the third party is exorbitant.
You have declared me wrong. I appreciate that. But at-least you should have given your reasons. I do admit that I am commoner, no expert, might be wrong anywhere and that is why I am here to learn from you people, the learned ones.
