Summary
A purchaser sought specific performance of an agreement executed during the statutory non-alienation period, following a mortgage and payment of the entire price with delivery of possession. The Court held that the transaction violated the Karnataka land-reform restriction. Both sides participated in the illegality, but the purchaser’s claim depended entirely on it. The Court restored dismissal of the suit despite the defendants’ failure to contest it by pleadings or evidence.
Issues
- Whether the agreement and accompanying transaction were enforceable despite the statutory transfer prohibition.
- Whether the absence of a pleaded defence prevented refusal of relief on illegality apparent from the evidence.
Provisions considered
- Section 61, Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961The mortgage and agreement involving full payment and possession occurred within the prohibited fifteen-year period; the statutory invalidity prevented specific enforcement. (¶¶ 12, 13, 23, 25)
Held
- The mortgage followed by an agreement acknowledging full consideration and delivery of possession was nothing short of a transfer. On the admitted facts, the 1990 transaction fell within the fifteen-year restriction attached to the 1983 grant. (¶¶ 8, 9, 23)
- Where illegality goes to the root of the claim, a plaintiff who must rely on the illegal transaction cannot obtain the court’s active assistance. Illegality apparent from the evidence must be noticed even if the defendant has not pleaded or relied on it. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 20, 25)
- Both contracting parties participated in the statutory violation. Refusing a decree incidentally benefited the defendants but involved only passive assistance and was less injurious to public interest than actively enforcing the prohibited transaction. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27)
Result
The appeals were allowed with parties bearing their own costs. The High Court and first appellate court judgments were set aside, and the trial court’s dismissal of the specific-performance suit was restored.