1959 (9) TMI 63 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Declaration of title to 136 odd bighas of Ryotikasht lands.
2. Possession of the lands either exclusively or jointly.
3. Claim for mesne profits and interest.
4. Whether the defendants were benamidars.
5. Allegation of fraud upon the Bettiah Raj.
6. Application of the legal maxim "ex turpi causa non oritur actio."
7. Creation of a new tenancy after the lease expiry.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Declaration of Title to 136 odd bighas of Ryotikasht lands:
The appellants sought a declaration of their title to 136 odd bighas of Ryotikasht lands. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the appellants, finding that the defendants were in possession as benamidars. The High Court reversed this decision, but the Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's decree, recognizing the appellants' title.

2. Possession of the Lands Either Exclusively or Jointly:
The appellants also sought possession of the lands. The trial court's decision in favor of the appellants was based on the finding that the defendants were benamidars. The High Court's reversal was based on the grounds of fraud, but the Supreme Court ultimately restored the trial court's decree, granting possession to the appellants.

3. Claim for Mesne Profits and Interest:
The appellants claimed mesne profits and interest. The trial court's decree included this claim, which was reversed by the High Court. However, the Supreme Court's restoration of the trial court's decree implies acceptance of the claim for mesne profits and interest.

4. Whether the Defendants Were Benamidars:
The trial court found that the defendants were benamidars, holding the lands in trust for the appellants' predecessor, Radhumal. This finding was accepted by the High Court but was used to deny relief due to alleged fraud. The Supreme Court upheld the benami nature of the transaction, affirming the trial court's findings.

5. Allegation of Fraud Upon the Bettiah Raj:
The respondents contended that the appellants' predecessor committed fraud by acquiring lands benami to avoid lease conditions. The High Court accepted this argument, but the Supreme Court found that the fraud was not effected as the Bettiah Raj was aware of the benami nature and took no action. Therefore, the fraud did not disentitle the appellants to a decree.

6. Application of the Legal Maxim "ex turpi causa non oritur actio":
The respondents argued that the appellants' claim was barred by the maxim "ex turpi causa non oritur actio" due to the alleged fraud. The Supreme Court, however, held that the maxim did not apply since the fraud was not perpetrated, and the illegality was trivial. The Court emphasized that the appellants did not need to rely on the illegal transaction to establish their case.

7. Creation of a New Tenancy After the Lease Expiry:
The High Court suggested that a new tenancy was created with the respondents after the lease expiry, as rent was accepted from them. The Supreme Court rejected this, stating that this aspect was not pleaded by the respondents and lacked supporting evidence. The Court held that the High Court erred in constructing this new case for the respondents.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and decree, restoring the trial court's decree in favor of the appellants. The appellants were entitled to a declaration of title, possession, and mesne profits. The Court found that the alleged fraud did not disentitle the appellants and that the maxim "ex turpi causa non oritur actio" was inapplicable in this context.