A payment made under a void agreement cannot be recovered under Sections 65 and 72 of the Contract Act if the payment is prohibited by the statute.

Mahapatra, J.

1. Plaintiff Kuju Collieries Ltd. with its head office in Bombay is the appellant. It brought a suit (Title Suit No. 24 of 1954) in the court of the Subordinate Judge, Hazaribagh, against five defendants for declaration that the plaintiff had title to the mining properties in suit under the indenture of lease executed in favour of Hari Charan Singh J. D. and Co. Ltd. and for recovery of possession of the same. It also asked for mesne profits for three years preceding the date of the suit, amounting to Rs. 20,000 with future mesne profits and alternatively, it also asked for refund of Rs. 80,000, which it paid as a part of the consideration money to defendants 1 and 2 for the lease and also the money spent by it in connection with the lease.

2. The plaintiffs case, in brief, was that defendant 2, Raja Bahadur K. N. Singh, proprietor of an estate known as Ramgarh Raj in the Hazaribagh District, who was in possession of his estate in which coal mines were situate, gave a mining lease to defendants 3 and 4 in respect of an area described in the schedule of the plaint, which was to expire on the 6th of April, 1950. The plaintiff-company was carrying on business and running in the name of Hari Charan Singh J. D. and Co. Ltd. in 1949; and later, that name was changed to Kuju Collieries Ltd. in which name the present suit was instituted. On the 4th October, 1949, there was an agreement between defendant 2 in the name of defendant 1, a limited company created by him, and the plaintiff in the name of Hari Charan Singh J. D. and Co. Ltd. to the effect that on the expiry of the lease of defendants 3 and 4, defendant 1 will execute a lease in favour of the plaintiff. The premium and the royalty payable in that connection were also agreed upon and entered in the deed of agreement. Following that, on the 7th September, 1950, an indenture of lease was executed between defendant 1 and Hari Charan Singh J. D. and Co. Ltd. for a period of 99 years and for a consideration of Rs. 2,00,000, besides rents and royalties as mentioned in the document. Out of the aforesaid amount, a sum of Rs. 50,000 was paid at the time of registration of that instrument on the 16th September, 1950, and subsequently another sum of Rs. 30,000 was paid by the plaintiff in August, 1951. The plaintiff executed a mortgage bond in favour of defendant 1 for the balance of the consideration money. In spite of these, possession was not delivered to the plaintiff; and hence the plaintiff instituted the present suit on the 22nd May, 1954.

3. The suit was contested by the defendants. The first two defendants pleaded that possession had been given in pursuance of the lease to the plaintiff, whereas defendants 3 and 4 raised the plea that the lease executed in favour of the plaintiff was void, as it was in contravention of the provisions of the Mines and Minerals (Regulation and Development) Act (Act LIII of 1948), 1948, and the Minerals Conservation and Development Rules made thereunder, which came into force on the 25th October, 1949. While this suit was pending, defendant 1 brought a mortgage suit against the plaintiff on the mortgage that they had executed. Both the suits were tried together and were dismissed on contest but without costs. The present appeal is only against the decree passed in the plaintiffs suit; and we shall confine to that.

4. The trial court dismissed the plaintiffs suit mainly on the ground that the plaintiff had acquired no title to the leasehold mining area because the lease that was executed in its favour was void; and neither declaration of title nor possession in respect of the property could be given to it. Its alternative prayer for refund of the part of the consideration which it had paid to the lessors was also refused as it was connected with the void lease, which could not be enforced in Court. Against this, the plaintiff has come in appeal.

5. Learned counsel conceded that the view taken by the trial Court of the lease was