Benami title and incomplete illegality do not bar recovery where the claim is independently provable

A claim to recover benami property was not barred by ex turpi causa because the benami character and source of consideration were found in the plaintiffs' favour, the alleged fraud on the lessor was never completed, and the impugned signatures were only incidental to the claim. Relief could be granted where the unlawful purpose had not been carried out and the cause of action did not depend on proving the alleged illegality. A separate argument that the defendants had become tenants after expiry of the lease was rejected because it had not been pleaded and would have required fresh evidence. The decree in favour of the plaintiffs was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiffs were barred from relief because the property had been acquired benami with an alleged intention to defeat the lessor's rights and because certain signatures were said to have been forged; (ii) Whether the plaintiffs' suit failed on the footing that the defendants had become tenants of the lessor after expiry of the lease.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiffs were barred from relief because the property had been acquired benami with an alleged intention to defeat the lessor's rights and because certain signatures were said to have been forged.

Analysis: The benami character of the acquisition and the source of the consideration had been conclusively found in favour of the plaintiffs. The alleged fraud on the lessor was not shown to have been completed, since the lessor had knowledge of the arrangement and did not act upon it. The plaintiffs had disclosed the true nature of the transaction before the contingency against which the arrangement was made could operate. The illegality regarding signatures was held to be incidental and not essential to the foundation of the claim. The cause of action to recover benami property did not depend on proving the impugned signatures.

Conclusion: The plea of ex turpi causa non oritur actio did not defeat the suit, and the plaintiffs were entitled to relief.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiffs' suit failed on the footing that the defendants had become tenants of the lessor after expiry of the lease.

Analysis: That contention had not been pleaded and would have required a fresh case and fresh evidence. The defendants' case throughout was that they were original settlees, not persons newly settled after the lease expired. The appellate court could not build a new case for them on appeal.

Conclusion: The contention of a fresh tenancy after expiry of the lease was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The plaintiffs succeeded in establishing their benami title, and no disqualifying illegality was held to bar recovery. The decree of the trial court was restored and the plaintiffs obtained relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A plaintiff is not non-suited for an antecedent illegality unless the illegality goes to the root of the cause of action and must be relied on to establish the claim; where the unlawful purpose is not carried out and the claim can be proved independently, relief is not barred.

---