NDLI: Smt. Narayanamma & Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. Sri Govindappa & Ors. Etc. Etc.

Content Provider	Supreme Court of India
e-ISSN	30484839
Language	English
Access Restriction	NDLI
Subject Keyword	Maxims–”ex turpi causa non oritur actio” 1961 Karnataka Land Reforms Act 48-A ss.61
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Law Judgement
Jurisdiction	India
Act(s) Referred	Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (10 of 1962)
Case(s) Referred	Referred Case 0 Referred Case 1 Referred Case 2
Case Type	Appeal
Court	Supreme Court of India
Disposal Nature	Appeal Allowed
Headnote	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 appellantsdefendants, 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 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-intitle 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.
Judge	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Bhushan Ramkrishna Gavai
Neutral Citation	2019 INSC 1091
Petitioner	Smt. Narayanamma & Anr. Etc. Etc.
Respondent	Sri Govindappa & Ors. Etc. Etc.
SCR	[2019] 12 S.C.R. 744
Judgement Date	2019-09-26
Case Number	7630

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Smt. Narayanamma & Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. Sri Govindappa & Ors. Etc. Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

M/s. Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union and Ors.

State of Karnataka and Anr. Vs. Uppegouda and Ors. Etc.

A.b.c. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.p. Agencies, Salem

Ramachandra Krishna Bhatta Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.

Sri Siddappa (dead) By Lrs. and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Narasamma & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Monthi Menezes (d) By Lr. Vs. Devaki Amma (d) By Lr. & Anr.

K.kunhambu Vs. Smt. Chandramma and Ors.

University of Mysore Vs. Rajaiah (dead) By Lrs. & Ors.

Smt. Narayanamma & Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. Sri Govindappa & Ors. Etc. Etc.

Smt. Narayanamma & Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. Sri Govindappa & Ors. Etc. Etc.

Please Log-in to view this content

Similar Documents

M/s. Oswal Agro Furane Ltd. and Anr. Vs. Oswal Agro Furane Workers Union and Ors.

State of Karnataka and Anr. Vs. Uppegouda and Ors. Etc.

A.b.c. Laminart Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. A.p. Agencies, Salem

Ramachandra Krishna Bhatta Vs. State of Karnataka and Anr.

Sri Siddappa (dead) By Lrs. and Ors. Vs. The State of Karnataka and Ors.

Narasamma & Ors. Vs. State of Karnataka & Ors.

Monthi Menezes (d) By Lr. Vs. Devaki Amma (d) By Lr. & Anr.

K.kunhambu Vs. Smt. Chandramma and Ors.

University of Mysore Vs. Rajaiah (dead) By Lrs. & Ors.

Smt. Narayanamma & Anr. Etc. Etc. Vs. Sri Govindappa & Ors. Etc. Etc.