SMT. NARAYANAMMA & ANR. ETC. ETC. versus SRI GOVINDAPPA & ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2019] 12 S.C.R. 744 · Decided: 26-09-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARUN MISHRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
744
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 12 S.C.R.
SMT. NARAYANAMMA & ANR. ETC. ETC.
v.
SRI GOVINDAPPA & ORS. ETC. ETC.
(Civil Appeal Nos. 7630-7631 of 2019)
 SEPTEMBER  26, 2019
  [ARUN MISHRA, M. R. SHAH AND B. R. GAVAI, JJ.]
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – ss.61, 48-A  – On
13.09.83, the suit property was granted under the provisions of
the Act in favor of the predecessor-in-title of the appellants-
defendants, with non-alienation clause of 15 years – On 23.04.90,
he mortgaged the suit land in favour of the plaintiff-respondents(s)
for Rs.20,000/- and agreed to repay the loan within a year –
However, on 15.05.90, he executed an agreement to sell in favour
of the plaintiff reciting that he was in need of money and had
agreed to sell the suit property for Rs.46,000/- – Suit for specific
performance of the contract filed inter alia contending that the
defendants did not come forward to execute the sale deed in respect
of the agreement to sell –Trial court held that the suit was not
maintainable as the agreement was contrary to the statutory bar
of 15 years on alienation of the suit property and hence, void in
law – First appellate court allowed the appeal of the plaintiff –
Upheld by the High Court – Held: Transaction between the
predecessor-in-title of the defendants and the plaintiff is not
disputed –Initially the property was mortgaged on 23.04.90, and
within a month, he entered into an agreement to sell wherein, the
entire consideration for the transfer as well as handing over of
the possession to the plaintiff was acknowledged –Transaction was
nothing short of transfer of property – U/s. 61, there is complete
prohibition on such mortgage/transfer for 15 years from the date
of grant – Even according to the plaintiff, the grant is of the year
1983, as such, the transfer in question in 1990 is within the
prohibited period of 15 years – Both, the plaintiff and the
predecessor-in-title of the defendants equally responsible for
violation of law – Claim of the plaintiff entirely based upon the
agreement to sell dtd. 15.05.90, which is hit by s.61 – No other
foundation for the claim – Although illegality is not pleaded by
744
   [2019] 12 S.C.R. 744
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
745
the defendant nor sought to be relied upon him by way of defence,
yet the Court itself, upon the illegality appearing upon the evidence,
will take notice of it, and dismiss the action ex turpi causa non oritur
actio i.e. No polluted hand shall touch the pure fountain of justice
– Order of the High Court set aside, while that of the trial court
dismissing the suit, upheld – Maxims – ex turpi causa non oritur actio
and in pari delicto potior est conditio defendentis et possidentis.
Maxims–”ex turpi causa non oritur actio”; “in pari delicto
potior est conditio defendentis et possidentis” and “ex dolo malo
non oritur actio” – Applicability of – Discussed.
Practice & Procedure – Claim of the plaintiff based on illegal
agreement – Defendant also participator in the illegality – Grant
of relief in such cases – Suit property granted under the 1961 Act
in favor of the predecessor-in-title of the appellants-defendants,
with non-alienation clause of 15 years – In violation of the Act,
he executed agreement to sell dtd. 15.05.90 in favour of the
plaintiff-respondents(s) – Suit for specific performance of the
contract filed inter alia contending that the defendants did not come
forward to execute the sale deed –Trial court held that the the suit
was not maintainable – Reversed by the first appellate court –
Upheld by the High Court – Held: Both the parties are common
participator in the illegality– Relying on Immani Appa Rao case, if
the decree is granted in favour of the plaintiff on the basis of an
illegal agreement hit by a statute, it will be rendering an active
assistance of the court in enforcing an agreement contrary to law
– As against this, if the balance is tilted towards the defendants,
they would stand benefited even in spite of their predecessor-in-
title committing an illegality – However, what the court would be
doing is only rendering an assistance which is purely of a passive
character – First course would be patently inconsistent with the
public interest whereas, the latter course is lesser injurious to
public interest than the former – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961
– Equity.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The facts in the present case are not in dispute.
The recital in the agreement to sell reads that at the time of
executio

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