TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2017 (11) TMI 1869
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the parties was got executed from her fraudulently on the promise of being paid Rs. 1 crore. It is stated that on the date of execution of the Relinquishment Deed only Rs. 10 lacs was paid to the plaintiff. In support of the said contention, learned counsel for plaintiff relies upon the Settlement Receipt dated 16th June, 2011 executed by the defendants. 3. Consequently, the plaintiff in the present suit prays for a declaration that the Relinquishment Deed dated 16th June, 2011 is null and void and further that she be declared owner of 1/4th share in the said property and the defendants be restrained from dealing with the property in question. 4. On 20th July, 2016, the learned Predecessor of this Court had observed that even if what the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t they had executed the said document. He states that the defendants have concealed the Settlement Receipt dated 16th June, 2011 from the Registrar. 9. Upon a reading of the plaint and the documents filed, this Court finds that every time the plaintiff points one finger at the defendants, three fingers point back to the plaintiff. From the pleadings on record and arguments advanced, it is apparent that the plaintiff is equally at fault and was a part of the alleged fraud. 10. None of the parties had disclosed to the Registrar while getting the Relinquishment Deed registered that the said document was being executed against consideration. 11. In fact, if the plaintiff's plaint is to be believed, then certainly the plaintiff had not ex....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ommon-law defense at issue in this case derives from the Latin, in pari delicto portior est conditio defendentis: "In a case of equal or mutual fault.......the position of the [defending] party.....is the better one." The defense is grounded on two premises: first, that courts should not lend their good offices to mediating disputes among wrongdoers; and second, that denying judicial relief to an admitted wrongdoer is an effective means of deterring illegality....." (emphasis supplied) 15. The Supreme Court in Immani Appa Rao and Ors. vs. Gollapalli Ramalingamurthi and Ors., (1962) 3 SCR 739 has held as under:- "In support of the contrary view reliance is usually placed on an early English decision in Doe, Dem. Roberts against Roberts,....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he grantee of an annuity to recover premises on which it was secured, the grantor was allowed to show that the premises were of less value than the annuity, and consequently, that the deed required enrolment, although he had expressly covenanted in the deed that the premises were of greater value.......". According to the learned author "the better opinion seems to be that where both parties to an indenture either know, or have the means of knowing, that it was executed for an immoral purpose, or in contravention of a statute, or of public policy, neither of them will be estopped from proving those facts which render the instrument void ab initio for although a party will thus in certain cases be enabled to take advantage of his own wrong, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d govern the decision of such cases. Said Lord Mansfield, C. J., "the objection that a contract is immoral or illegal as between plaintiff and defendant sounds at all times very ill in the mouth of the defendant. It is not for his sake, however, that the objection is ever allowed but it is founded in general principles of policy which the defendant has the advantage of, contrary to the real justice, as between him and the plaintiff, by accident, if I may say so. The principle of public policy is this: ex dolo malo non oritur actio. No Court will lend its aid to a man who founds his cause of action upon an immoral or an illegal act. If, from the plaintiff's own stating or otherwise the cause of action appears to arise ex turpi causa or t....