Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. The trial Judge has held that from 20th March 1949, the defendant did not allow the plaintiff to fell the trees or remove the wood; that he made a demand for the payment of the amount of the third instalment before it was due saying to the plaintiff that he had no right to give the lease and that if he were to make the payment he would be allowed to remove the wood; that it was on enquiry that the plaintiff learnt that the defendant was a 'third grade Jagirdar' and as such had no right to lease out the forest area under the two Robkars of the Ratlam State; and further that the defendant illegally and fraudulently obtained from the plaintiff the amount of Rs. 2,225.

5. Before us, the controversy in the appeal centred round the finding of the learned District Judge about the maintainability of the suit, and the question to be decided in this appeal is a very limited one. It is whether, under the two Robkars of the Ruler of the Ratlam State, if the defendant had no right to grant the lease, the lease is void and the plaintiff is entitled to the return of the money paid by him to the defendant under Section 65 of the Contract Act and to recover the expenses and damages claimed by him.

The reasoning of the learned District Judge is that under the two Robkars issued by the sovereign authority of the Ratlam State, third grade Jagirdars of that State were prohibited from giving the contracts of forest areas in their Jagirs; that, therefore, the contract granted by the defendant was illegal being contrary to the law of the Ratlam State; that the parties must be presumed to have known this law at the time when they entered into the contract; that the parties to the contract were 'in pari delicto' as they knew the unlawfulness of the contract; and that, therefore, the contract being illegal to the knowledge of both parties, the plaintiff could not claim the refund of the amount of consideration paid by him or the other amounts claimed by him.

They apply to illegal or immoral transactions, or to others which it would be against public policy to countenance. Now, here, the Robkars issued by the Ruler of the Ratlam State, even if they are regarded as law, did not lay down that leases granted contrary to the directions contained in the Robkars shall be illegal or unlawful. The Robkars only forbade the Jagirdars of third grade in Ratlam State from giving leases and contracts of forest areas in their Jagirs. They did not impose a gsneral incapacity on third grade Jagirdars to contract. The incapacity was only in relation to the Jagir forests.