JUDGMENT S. Samvatsar, J. 1. This appeal is filed by the plaintiff challenging judgment and decree dated 3-10-1996 passed by Addl. District Judge, Mungawali, District Guna in Civil Suit No. 5-A/93 whereby the Court below has dismissed the suit filed by the appellants for specific performance or in alternative for payment of compensation of Rs. 27,000/- . 2. Brief facts of the case are that village Nanauti was a Zamindari village and Himmatsingh, Gajrajsingh, Hameersingh and Shankarsingh were the Ex-Zamindars of the said village. Land admeasuring to 195 bigha 8 biswa was recorded in the name of Gajrajsingh while 97 bigha and 5 biswa was recorded in the name of Shankarshingh. 49 bigha and 9 biswa was recorded in the name of Hameersingh. Thus, the total land of 342 bigha and 5 biswa was recorded in the name of these persons. According to the plaint allegations this land was Khudkast land and after coming into force of Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act they continued to be the owner of the land. However, some other persons were in possession of the part of the land and litigation in respect of the said land was pending. On 10-4-1981 an agreement was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant whereby the defendant has agreed to sell one fourth of survey No. 106 admeasuring to 0.536 hectares to the plaintiff. The possession of the said land was also handed over to the plaintiff at the time of agreement. It was also agreed that one half portion of survey No. 48 admeasuring to 1.259 hectares shall be sold by the defendant to the plaintiff. The possession of this land was continued with the defendants. It was agreed by the said agreement that the plaintiff will bear the expenses of all the litigations pending in respect of the said land and in case the defendants succeeds in the litigation they will transfer the lands mentioned above to the defendants. 3. It is alleged that ultimately the defendant succeeded in the litigation and when the defendant did not transfer the lands as agreed by them in the said agreement Ex. P/l, the plaintiff filed the present suit. 4. Defendant filed their written statements denying the allegations made in the plaint. Trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed as many as three issues and ultimately dismissed the suit. 5. P/l, the plaintiff filed the present suit. 4. Defendant filed their written statements denying the allegations made in the plaint. Trial Court on the basis of pleadings framed as many as three issues and ultimately dismissed the suit. 5. First contention raised by counsel for the appellants is that the Court below has erred in not passing a decree for specific performance or in alternative payment of compensation at Rs. 27,000/- . According to him the agreement is covered by section 25 of the Contract Act. According to the plaintiff the contract is a contingent contract and, therefore, it can be enforced under section 32 of the Contract Act and also refused to pass decree for compensation. 6. Trial Court has dismissed the suit by holding that the agreement between the parties is proved. Court below found that the plaintiff has not proved the actual expenditure incurred by him in the litigation and in such circumstances the Court refused to grant specific performance of the contract. 7. Counsel for the appellant urged that under section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, the Court has discretion to grant relief of specific performance and that discretion is to be exercised by the Court judicially. According to him in any event if the Court refuses to pass a decree for specific performance then the Court should award the compensation. According to him in the present case it was agreed that if the sale deed is not executed then the plaintiff shall be entitled to the cost of the land promised to be sold to them. According to Shri Naik, learned senior counsel, from the statements of the defendant itself it is clear that the cost of the land at that time was Rs. 1,500/- per bigha. He, therefore, submits that the Court should have awarded him a compensation for Rs. 27,000/- . 8. Trial Court found that the contingent contract is enforceable under section 31 of the Contract Act. However, while holding that the Court below has not considered the provisions of section 23 of the Contract Act which prohibits the enforcement of any contract which is contrary to the public policy. 9. From perusal of the said contract it appears that the agreement is a champerty agreement. It is true that in India there is no law which prohibits champertous agreement as that in England. 9. From perusal of the said contract it appears that the agreement is a champerty agreement. It is true that in India there is no law which prohibits champertous agreement as that in England. However, the said situation is considered by number of High Courts in India and held that the said principle is applicable in the India also. The first judgment is in the case of Babu Ram vs. Ram Charan Lal and another, AIR 1934 All. 1023 in which it is held that the agreement to finance litigation and receive half of the decretal amount is prima facie equitable and opposed to public policy. Similar view is taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Nuthaki Venkataswami vs. Katta Nagi Reddy and others, AIR 1962 Andh Pra 457 which is a division bench judgment. The another judgment is of Bombay High Court in the case of Harilal Nathalal Tahiti vs. Bhailal Pranlal Shah, AIR 1940 Bom 143 in which the division bench of Bombay High Court has held that an agreement by plaintiff to finance defendant's partition suit in consideration of defendant giving half of his share is an unconscionable and extortionate bargaining and is opposed to public policy. The division bench of Madras High Court in the case of Pusapati Venkatapathiraju Garu and others vs. Vatsavaya Venkata Subhadrayyamma Jagapati, 1919 Mad 718 has held that agreement to finance a litigation in consideration of the claimant's getting a share of property, if successful, but containing no provision for refund in case of failure, is champertous agreement and cannot be enforced. 10. Shri Naik has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Banwarilal vs. Deenanath and others, ILR 1954 MB 337, in which the learned Single Judge of this Court has held that a fair agreement to supply funds to carry on such a suit in consideration of having share in the property, if recovered, is not opposed to the public policy. In that case the plaintiff was appointed as a Mukhtyar Am to litigate the matter on behalf of the defendant. It was agreed that the defendant shall pay remuneration to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 300/- per year so long as litigation lasted. Thus, there is a finding that consideration for the agreement was paid. In that case the plaintiff was appointed as a Mukhtyar Am to litigate the matter on behalf of the defendant. It was agreed that the defendant shall pay remuneration to the plaintiff at the rate of Rs. 300/- per year so long as litigation lasted. Thus, there is a finding that consideration for the agreement was paid. However, in the present case I find that there is absolutely no evidence to prove how much amount is paid to the plaintiff in litigating the suit filed by the defendant. Thus, there is no evidence to prove the consideration on behalf of the plaintiff. Thus, the facts in this case are quite distinguishable to that of Banwarilal (supra). 11. In the present case I find that the agreement between the parties is unconscionable and agreement cannot be enforced in view of section 23 of the Contract Act as the same is against public policy. 12. Moreover, as regards granting relief of specific performance, under section 22 the Court has discretion to refuse or to grant decree for specific performance even when it is lawful to do so. In the present case the Court below has exercised the said jurisdiction in view of the fact that the plaintiff has not led any evidence to show that how much amount was spent by him in the litigation. Moreover, the Court found that the plaintiff has failed to prove that he has incurred the entire expenditure for the litigation. Thus, the Court below has exercised the jurisdiction after considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and, therefore, this Court cannot interfere in the exercise of jurisdiction exercised by the trial Court. 13. In the result, appeal is without any merits and is dismissed.