Agreements that involve using influence with the government to obtain a benefit are contrary to public policy and unenforceable. Such agreements tend to corrupt or influence public servants and are destructive of sound administration.

CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.

( 1 ) NAWAB Salar Jung III, a nobleman of erstwhile Hyderabad State died on 2-3-1949 leaving behind him a vast estate but no issue. Not unnaturally several persons came forward claiming to be heirs of the late Nawab Sajjid Yar Jang and Turab Yar Jung first cousins of the late Nawab were two such claims. But a notification published in the Jarida dated 9-5-1949 the Nizam made the Salar Jung Estate Administration Regulation, 1358 F, and appointed a Committee known as the Salar Jung Estate Committee to administer the estate of late Nawab Salar Jung. The regulation provided that no person including heirs, if any, of the late Salar Jung shall be entitled to the possession of the estate of the deceased so long as it was under the administration of the Committee. It was further provided that the Committee should function until the Government dissolved it by notification. This Committee was continued by the Nawab Salar Jung Bahadur (Administration of Assets) Ordinance 1949 made by the Governor General of India on 12-11-1949. The Ordinance was replaced by the Nawab Salar Jung Bahadur (Administration of Assets) Act, 1950 ( a Central Act ). The Nawab Salar Jung Committee was continued by this Act and it was provided that no suit or other legal proceeding for the enforcement of any right or remedy in respect of any asset shall be instituted in any Court by any person other than the Committee save with the previous consent of the Central Government.

( 2 ) ON 31-5-1949 the Nizam of Hyderabad appointed a Commission to enquire into the question of succession to the estate of the late Nawab and one of the questions referred to the Commission was whether the Jagir of the law Nawab escheated to Government. Another question was who were the heirs of late Salar Jung. The Commission was unable to proceed with the enquiry as some of the claimants filed a Writ Petition in the High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Commission to enquiry into the question of succession. The writ petition was ultimately allowed by the High Court of Hyderabad by the judgment dated 23-9-1952. The High Court held that the Commission was not the proper forum for determining the question of succession to the estate of the Nawab. The High Court, however, directed that the management of the estate might remain with the Committee until the question of succession was settled by the Civil Court in an appropriate action. The question of succession was ultimately settled as a result of the compromise between the various claimants, including the Government. The compromise was embodied in the decree passed in O. S. 13/58 a suit filed by some of the claimants.

( 3 ) WE stated that Sajjid Yar Jung and Turab Yar Jung were two of the persons claiming to succeed to the estate of Nawab Salar Jung. According to the plaintiff (a business of Bombay), Sajjid Yar Jung, did not have the wherewithal to establish his claim to a share i the estate of Salar Jung. He, therefore, approached the plaintiff for financial help to enable him to pursue his establish his claim. The plaintiff agreed to do so. Sajjid Yar Jung agreed to return all amounts advanced by the plaintiff from time to time. In addition he also agreed to give the plaintiff a one anna share in the amount received from the estate of Salar Hung Sajjid Yar Jung executed an agreement to that effect on 27-6-1952. Pursuant to the agreement Sajjid Yar Jung and his agents were drawing large amounts from the plaintiff from time to time. The total of the amounts so drawn came to about Rs. 75,000. Sajjid Yar Jung was enabled to pursue and establish his claim. He, however, passed away before the plaintiff could be paid his share of the amount received from the estate of Salar Jung. The plaintiff estimated the amount due to Sajjid Yar Jung from the estate of Salar Jung at about Rs. 60 lakhs. He claimed that he would be entitled to about Rs. 3 lakhs in addition to the return of the sums advanced by him. The plaintiff, there

Click Here to Read the rest of this document