9911796707
TMI Blog1974 (8) TMI 122X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. who are the appellants. As the plaintiff did not get the possession of the leased property it instituted a suit for recovery of possession of the leased property along with mesne profits and in the alternative for refund of the sum of ₹ 80,000/- and certain other sums. The present appeal is, however, concerned only with that amount. In the suit the 1st respondent and the 2nd respondent took the stand that the 1st respondent was not created by the 2nd respondent, that the lease was by the 1st respondent and the amount was paid to the 1st respondent alone and not to the 2nd respondent. The 1st respondent also contended that the leased properties were handed over to the plaintiff, that they were not aware that respondents 3 and 4 were resisting the plaintiff's claim and that the 1st respondent was not in any case responsible therefor and that therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief. During the pendency of this appeal respondents 2 and 3 died and their legal representatives have not been brought on record. The appellant is not claiming any relief against any of the other respondents except respondent No. 1 and it is, therefore, unnecessary to refer to the at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble and was, therefore, a contract,. becomes void due to subsequent happenings. In both these cases any person who has received any advantage under such agreement or contract is bound to restore such advantage, or to make compensation for it to the person from whom he received it. But where even at the time when the agreement is entered into both the parties knew that it was not lawful and, therefore, void, there was no contract but only an agreement and it is not a case where it is discovered to be void subsequently. Nor is it a case Of the contract becoming void due to subsequent happenings. Therefore, s. 65 of the Contract Act did not apply. The Privy Council in its decision in Harnath Kaur v. Inder Bahadur Singh (1923, 50 f. A. 69, 75-76) observed: The section deals with (a) agreements and (b) contracts. The distinction between them is apparent by s. 2; by clause (c) every set of promises forming the consideration for each other is an agreement, and by clause (h) an agreement enforceable by law is a contract. Section 65, therefore, deals with (a) agreements enforceable by law and (b) with agreements not so enforceable. By clause(g)an agreement not enforceable by law is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tly. There may be cases where parties enter into an. agreement honestly thinking that it is a perfectly legal agreement and where one of them sues the other or wants the other to act on it, it is their. that he may discover it to be void. There is nothing specific in s. 65 Indian Contract Act or its corresponding section of the Hyderabad Contract Act to make it inapplicable to such cases. A person who, however, gives money for an unlawful purpose knowing it to be so, or in such circumstances that knowledge of illegality or unlawfulness can as a finding of fact be imputed to him the agreement under which the payment is made cannot on his part be said to be discovered to be void. The ,criticism that if the aforesaid view is right then a person who has paid money or transferred property to another for illegal purpose can recover it back from the transferee under this Section even if the illegal purpose is carried into execution, notwithstanding the fact that both the transferor and transferee are in pari delicto, in our view, overlooks the fact that the courts do not assist a person who comes with unclean. hands. In such cases, the defendant possesses at,. advantage cover the plain ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der assistance to persons who induce innocent parties to enter into contracts of that nature by playing fraud on them to retain the benefit which they obtained by their wrong . They also referred with approval to the earlier decision of the Hyderabad High Court in Budhulal v. Deccan Banking Co. Ltd. (supra). In a recent judgment of this Court in Shri Ramagya Prasad Gupta Ors v. Shri Murli Prasad Ors. (C.A. Nos. 1710 of 1967 1986 of 1968 decided on 11-4-1974). to which one of us was a party, this Court quoted with approval the observations of the Full Bench of the Hyderabad High Court in Budhulal v. Deccan Banking Company (supra). These decisions are in accordance with the view we have taken. The Mineral Concession Rules came into force on 25-10-1949. As the lease came into force on September 7, 1950 and money was paid on that date, the fact that there was an earlier unregistered contract does not make any difference to the question at issue. Section 4 of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act. 1948 provides no mining lease shall be granted after the commencement of this Act otherwise than. in accordance with the rules made under this Act. and any min ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
