1. This was a suit by the plaintiff for compelling the defendant to execute a valid sale-deed in respect of certain properties. The defendant, it is said, on the receipt of the consideration money of Rs. 200 executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff which was not registered by the registering officer on account of some defects. Subsequently, it is said, the plaintiff asked the defendant to register a proper deed but he refused. The suit was, therefore, for compelling the defendant to give a valid deed of sale or to refund the consideration money. The Munsif gave a decree. The lower Appellate Court has set aside that decree holding that the defendant was, at the time of the contract, of unsound mind. It is contended in second appeal before us that upon the finding the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for the refund of the money paid. Reliance is placed, in support of this contention, on Section 65 of the Contract Act which provides that when an agreement is discovered to be void, any person who has received any advantage under such agreement is bound to restore it, or to make compensation for it, to the person from whom he received it. That section has been construed by their Lordships of the Judicial Committee in the case of Mohori Bibee v. Dharmodas Ghose 30 C. 539; 5 Bom. L.R. 421; 7 C.W.N. 44l; 30 I.A. 114 (P.C.) to proceed on the basis of the agreement or contract, mentioned therein, having been between parties competent to enter thereinto. If that be so, then Section 65 has no application because upon the finding the defendant was of unsound mind at the time of the agreement. Then reliance is placed upon Sections 38 and 41 of the Specific Relief Act. These sections, we think, have also no application because there is neither cancellation of any document nor rescission of a contract. These statutory provisions, therefore, are of no avail to the plaintiff.
2. Then reliance is placed upon equity. Equity is also against him because upon the finding the defendant was of unsound mind. It has been held that 'a Court of Equity cannot say that it is equitable to compel a person to pay any monies in respect of a transaction which as against that person the Legislature has declared to be void.' See the case of Thurstan v. Nottingham Permanent Benefit Building Society (1902) 1 Ch. D. 1; 71 L.J. Ch. 83; 50 W.R. 179; 86 L.T. 35; 18 T.L.R. 135. The plaintiff, therefore, cannot obtain any relief.
3. In this view of the case, we dismiss the appeal but without costs in this Court.