JUDGMENT : KNOX, J. : The object of the agreement between the predecessor-in-title of the plaintiffs and the defendants was regarded by the lower appellate Court as opposed to public policy, and therefore unlawful within the meaning of section 23 of Act IX of 1872. The view taken by the learned District Judge is supported by the decision of this Court in the case of Sham Lal v. Chhak, [1900] I.L.R., 22 All., 220. It has been argued in this case that the principle of that ruling will not apply here as the suit is one brought not by the public officer himself but by his heirs. 2. If the public officer himself cannot maintain the suit for the property, persons deriving title through him are in our opinion in no better position. Stress was laid upon section 82 of the Indian Trusts Act, but we do not think that section can be interpreted as authorising the Courts to give effect to an agreement the object of which is unlawful. The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.