In Brief
Narayanamma and another challenged the dismissal of their appeals regarding an agreement to sell land. The appellants contended that the land transfer violated the Reforms Act and was therefore void and unenforceable. Both the original transferor (the defendants' predecessor) and the plaintiff had received full consideration and possession, making them both complicit in the illegality. The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, holding that when both parties are equally culpable in violating the law, neither can enforce the illegal transaction. The court set aside the agreement to sell.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.