IMMANI APPA RAO AND OTHERS versus GOLLAPALLI RAMALINGAMURTHI AND ORS.

Citation: [1962] 3 S.C.R. 739 · Decided: 22-09-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

3 s.c.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
73g 
prayed for. It is clear that the approp.riate w:it ~n 
• - the circumstances of the present oase 1s a writ Ill 
the nature of mandamus and we modify the order 
made by the High Court to this extent that a writ 
in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the 
appellant-Government to cancel its order on the 
Collector made on June IO, 1954 and restraining 
the Government and the Forest Officer from inter-
-,. 
fearing with the petitioner's possession over 245.69 
acres of land in village Singpur which he possesses 
as tenant. 
-
The appeal is dismissed with coat8. 
Appeal dismissed. 
IMMANI APPA RAO AND OTHERS 
v. 
GOLLAPALLI RAMALINGAMURTHI AND ORS. 
(B. P. SINHA, C. J., P. B. GAJllJNDRAGADKAR and 
RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) 
,_ 
~raud--R•nami Conveyance in fraud of creditor.-Suit by 
b•n,am•dar for posseS!ion-Plea ~f.fraud in defence-If barred by 
••loppel--Proper approach-Public inter'81-lndian Trusts Act 
1882 (2 of 1882) s. 84. 
_..-
The conveyance in mit was tI.e result of a collusive plan 
between respondent I and respondent 2 to defraud the latter's 
creditors. 
The a.izreement was that respondent I was to act as 
the benamidar for respl)ndent 2 and hfa sons, the appellants. 
The fraud succeeded and the creditors of respondent 2 were in 
_... fact defrauded. Thereafter respondent I brought the present 
suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession against 
respondent 2 and the appellants on the basis of the conveyance. 
The latter resisted the suit on the ground that the conveyance 
wa. fraudulent, unmpported by consideration and passed no 
title. The High Court in oecond appeal held that the 
appellants and respondent 2 were estopped from pleading 
fraud in the suit and decreed the same. The question was 
whether the view taken bv the High Court was correct and the 
~stensible owner was entitled to a decree. 
Held, that there could be no question of estoppel in a case 
where both the parties were gu!ity of fraud 
1961 
State of Bihar 
v. 
Lt. Col. K. S. R. 
Swami 
Das Gupta], 
1961 
September 22. 
1961 
lmmlllli AH• Raa 
v. 
Gol/apal/i 
R""'ali111amvrthi 
740 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
Where in a case, •Uch as 
the present, one of the 
confederates in fraud seeks a 
decree on a conveyance that - • 
resulted from roch faud and the other takes pica of fraud in 
defence, the matter has to be decided on considerations of 
public policy. 
Since o~ of the panie1 must succeed in any event, the 
proper approach for the Court to adopt would be the one that 
was less injurious to public interest, namely, to allow the plea 
of fraud to be rat.cd in defence and, if upheld, allow the 
properties to remain \vhcre they were, than to dercee a suit 
based on a fraudulent claim. 
It could make no difference in such a case if the •uit was 
based on a deed of conveyance and not a contract. 
Vodiana Kamayya v. Gudiaa Kamayya, (1917) 32 M.J.J. 
~84, Kep1'la Kotayyar Naidu v. 
Chi:rapur Maha/ak•hmama, 
( 1933) I.LR. 56 
Mad. 646 and Mutho K .R.A.R.P.L. 
Arunachalam Clvdtiar v. 
Ranga•wamy Chettiar, (1936) I.L.R. 
59 Mad. 289, disapproved. 
Jlef"g v. 
Sadler a1td 
Moor<, [19371 2 K.B. 158, T. P. 
Petherperumal Chttly v. R. Muniandi Seri<Ji, ( 1908) L.R. 35 
I.A. 98 and llolman v.JohMOn, (1775) l Cowper, 341, referred 
to. 
D.a, Dem. RobPrl~ again.I Robtrt., Widow, (1819) 106 
E. R. 401, considered. 
Case.Jaw reviewed. 
Section 84 of the Indian Trusts Act ;, not exhaustive in 
its provisions and since 
the present case falls outside of that 
section, it has to be decided on considerations of general policy. 
.,. 
CivIL APPELLATY. JmusDICTIO::>: Civil Appeal 
No. 76 of 1959. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 
Nov()mbor 1(\, 1951, of the Madras High Court in 
Second Appeal No. 1656 of 1947. 
T. V. R. Tatacliari, for the appellants. 
K. N. Rajagopal Sastri and T. Satyanarayana, 
for the respondent No. 1. 
1961. September 22. The Judgment of the 
Court was delh·crcd by 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, J.-Tbis is an appeal by a 
certificate granted by the High Court of llfadras..._ 
against its judgment and di>cree in Second Appeal 
No. 1656of1947. The appeal arises out of Original 
T 
-· 
3 S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
741 
Suit No. 27 of 1939 filed by respondent 1 Gollapalli 
Ramalingamurthi against respondent 2 Immani 
Venkanna and his four sons appellants 1 to 4. 
The 
appellants and respondent 2 are members of an 
undivided Hindu family. The ~ase for respondent l 
was that he had purchased

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.