M M ROY Vs. N V P PANDIAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff appeals. THE suit out of which this appeal arises was laid with the following averments. THE defendant is a building contractor known to the plaintiff who appears to be a widow.THE plaintiff was making efforts to have her son admitted in the Madras Medical College. THE defendant, came forward to help her in having herson admitted in the medical college, if the plaintiff would lend him some money.Acco-rdingly, the plaintiff ,Parted with Rs.15,000 in all. THE seat in the medical college was not secured. THE defendant executed an agreement undertaking to pay the money. Since he failed to act as per that agreement, the plaintiff instituted the suit for the refund of the money.

(2.) THE defendant denied totally all the facts, specifically the receipt of money from the plaintiff. He denied also that he had at any time promised to secure a seat for her son in the medical college.He denied also having executed an agreement as alleged in the plaint. He, however, admitted having executed a promissory note on the eve of his sons wedding under coercion.

(3.) THE learned single Judge in his judgment dated 6-2-1978 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. In that judgment the learned single Judge observed that it has been proved that the plaintiff had paid a sum of Rs.15,000/- to the defendant and that the fact did not admit of any doubt. He held also that under Ex.A-1, dated 8-1-1971 the defendant had agreed to repay the sum of Rs.15,000/- on or before 31-3-1971. He has also recorded that it was specifically admitted by the learned counsel for the defendant that Ex.A-1 contained the signature, of the defendant. He further held that though the defendant alleged that Ex.A-1, was signed under threat and coercion such threat and coercion were not proved.THE learned Judge concluded by holding that he was in agreement with the trial court that the defendant received Rs.15,000/-from the plaintiff and executed Ex.A-1 agreement. But the learned single Judge found that the agreement between the parties was against public policy and that the claim of the plaintiff was hit by the maxim in pari delicto potior est conditio possidmentis. In this connection, the learned single Judge observed as follows: When the plaintiff parted with Rs.15,000/- as consideration for of the defendant agreeing to use his influence to secure for her son a seat in the Madras Medical College, it could only be by means other than straight-forward. THE agreement discloses a tendency to corrupt or influence public servants to decide matters otherwise than on their own merits. THE object for which the plaintiff gave Rs.15,000/- to the defendant was to use his influence evidently with the selection committee for selection of candidates to the Madras Medical College and that is opposed to public policy. It evidences her tendency to corrupt or to influence public servants or men in charge of public matters to decide and determise, matters otherwise than upon their merits, a tendency most injurious to public office. THErefore, both the plaintiff and the defendant must be considered to be in pari delicto.It is upon such conclusion that the learned single Judge allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.