Skip to content


Nathu Khan Vs. Musammat Sewak Koeri and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in9Ind.Cas.161
AppellantNathu Khan
RespondentMusammat Sewak Koeri and anr.
Excerpt:
evidence act (i of 1872), section 92, provisos (1), (2) - oral evidence, admissibility of--proof of real transaction--contract act (ix of 1872), section 65--obligation of person receiving advantage under agreement known to be illegal. - .....void'. what has been found is this, that the plaintiff sold the property in suit to the defendant no. 2 by a conveyance, in consideration of services rendered or to be rendered by the defendant in inducing one lakhpat nath singh, his employer, to sell certain villages to the plaintiff, in other words, that the defendant committed fraud upon his employer. this fact was known to the parties at the time when the agreement was made.3. in my opinion, the section does not apply where the object of the agreement was illegal to the knowledge of both parties at the time it was made. it is farther to be observed that in the present case the legal purpose has been carried out; and relief is not ordinarily granted by the court where both parties are, as here, in pari delicto.4. in the.....
Judgment:

Woodroffe, J.

1. As regard the two points which have been raised in this appeal. I am of opinion that the lower appellate Court rightly admitted the oral evidence as to which objection has been taken.

2. As regards the second point, the case does not appear to me to fall within Section 65 of the Indian, Contract Act, for, having regard to the facts, it does not appear to be one in which it can be said that the agreement has been 'discovered to be void', nor is it one where the contract has 'become void'. What has been found is this, that the plaintiff sold the property in suit to the defendant No. 2 by a conveyance, in consideration of services rendered or to be rendered by the defendant in inducing one Lakhpat Nath Singh, his employer, to sell certain villages to the plaintiff, in other words, that the defendant committed fraud upon his employer. This fact was known to the parties at the time when the agreement was made.

3. In my opinion, the section does not apply where the object of the agreement was illegal to the knowledge of both parties at the time it was made. It is farther to be observed that in the present case the legal purpose has been carried out; and relief is not ordinarily granted by the Court where both parties are, as here, in pari delicto.

4. In the circumstances, the appeal should, in my opinion, be dismissed and with costs.

Carnduff, J.

5. I am of the same opinion.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //