1978 (2) TMI 232 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Receipt of Rs. 15,000 by the appellant and execution of Ex. A-1 agreement.
2. Validity of the agreement under public policy.
3. Entitlement of the respondent to maintain an action for the refund of money.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Receipt of Rs. 15,000 by the appellant and execution of Ex. A-1 agreement
The trial court found that the appellant received Rs. 15,000 from the respondent and executed Ex. A-1 document. The respondent's evidence, supported by bank statements (Exs. A-2 to A-5), confirmed the withdrawal of the amounts on specified dates. The appellant admitted his signature on Ex. A-1 but claimed it was executed under coercion. The court found no evidence supporting the appellant's claim of coercion and upheld the trial court's finding that the appellant received the money and executed Ex. A-1.

Issue 2: Validity of the agreement under public policy
The court examined whether the respondent was entitled to maintain the action for the recovery of the amount based on the original loan and not merely on Ex. A-1 agreement. The court noted that the suit was filed because the appellant failed to secure a seat in the Madras Medical College for the respondent's son, which was the consideration for the payment. The agreement was deemed against public policy as it involved using influence to secure a benefit from the Government, which is contrary to the principles of merit-based selection and public interest. The court cited various legal precedents and principles, including Halsbury's Laws of England and Anson's Law of Contract, to support the conclusion that the agreement was injurious to public service and therefore void.

Issue 3: Entitlement of the respondent to maintain an action for the refund of money
The trial court had granted a decree for the refund of money on the ground that the respondent was a less guilty party. However, the High Court found no evidence to support this finding. It concluded that both parties were in pari delicto (equally at fault), and the maxim "in pari delicto potior est conditio possidentis" applied, meaning the law favors the party in possession. The court referred to the Supreme Court decision in Sita Ram v. Radha Bai, which outlines exceptions to this principle, none of which applied in this case. The court also referred to the decision in Kuju Collieries v. Jharkhand Mines, where it was held that money paid under an illegal agreement cannot be recovered. Consequently, the High Court ruled that the respondent was not entitled to a refund of the money as the agreement was void from its inception and opposed to public policy.

Conclusion
The High Court set aside the trial court's judgment and decree, dismissed the suit, and allowed the appeal with costs, holding that the respondent was not entitled to a refund of the money paid under an agreement that was void and against public policy.