Manju Vats & Ors vs Meena Pandey on 1 June, 2023
18. On the submission of the learned counsel for the defendant that
prayer (ccc) and (cccc) of the amended plaint, would be hit by the
doctrine of pari delicto, the learned counsel for the plaintiffs, placing
reliance on the Kedar Nath Motani & Others v. Prahlad Rai &
Others, AIR 1960 SC 213; Dal Chand v. Babu Ram & Ors., AIR
1981 ALL 335; Sita Ram v. Radhabai & Ors., AIR 1968 SC 534;
T.P. Petherpermal Chetty v. R. Muniandi Servai & Others, 1908
SCC OnLine PC 5; and Babita Pal & Ors. v. J. Jagdish Bansal, 2013
(133) DRJ 332 (DB), submits that it is not the case of the plaintiffs
that the alleged Sale Deed was executed by the mother of the plaintiffs
to perpetuate a fraud on any third party. The case of the plaintiffs is
that the parties required a loan for the purposes of construction on the
suit land, and as it was a condition that such loan will be extended
only to a sole owner of the property, the sale transaction was entered
into with a clear understanding that the same shall, however, not vest
exclusive ownership only on the mother of the defendant or in any
manner exclude the mother of the plaintiffs from such ownership
rights. In fact, the loan has been completely repaid from the family
funds and, therefore, even otherwise, there was no fraud perpetuated
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:SUNIL
Signing Date:03.06.2023
16:21:34
CS(OS) 1281/2015 Page 7 of 15
on any third party. He submits that, therefore, the doctrine of pari
delicto shall not apply to the facts of the present case.