A contract for an act that is illegal or impossible under prevailing regulations is void. A party cannot claim damages or specific performance for an agreement they knowingly entered into to perform an illegal act, as their own conduct disqualifies them from receiving equitable relief.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Kumar Sharma, J.

Heard Mr. N. Baruah, learned counsel for the appellant in RFA No. 116/2017 and respondent in CO No. 15/2018. Also heard Mr. B.D. Deka, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in RFA No. 116/2017 and objector in CO No. 15/2018.

2. The present respondent, as plaintiff, had instituted a suit for specific performance of contract, permanent injunction, alternatively for recovery of money and compensation, etc.

3. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and decree dated 17.07.2017 passed by the Civil Judge No. 3, Kamrup (M) Guwahati in Title Suit No. 86/2010 decreeing the suit.

4. The brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff and his wife are doctors by profession. In search of space to open up a doctor's chamber cum clinic they met defendant No.3 who introduced them to defendant No.2, the MD of defendant No.1 Company. A discussion took place amongst them and the defendant No.2 verbally agreed to provide ground floor space measuring 1000 sq. ft plus frontage area of about 400 sq. ft as well as first floor area of 1375 sq. ft. in the under construction Meghmallar Hill View apartment of defendant No.1 to the plaintiff and his wife at Rs. 33,00,000/- which included registration cost etc. Plaintiff was, however, told that permission for ground floor space has been applied for and there was 99% chance of getting the same from GMDA. He was further told that in case permission was not granted, he would be provided contiguous two bed room apartment on Guwahati the first floor alongside three bed room apartment at Rs.14,94,200/- agreed to the said proposal and also agreed to pay Rs.33,00,000/-for the entire area. On 22.06.2007 vide two allotment letters plaintiff and his wife were allotted apart/flat bearing No-01/Gr. and apart/flat bearing No. 101/Al measuring 1000 sq. ft and 1350 sq. ft. at Rs.9,30,000/- and Rs.13,50,000/- respectively excluding cost of extra work under construction project 'Meghmallar Hill View', by defendant No.1. Rest Rs.10,20,000/- was, thus, charged for registration and frontage area etc. On 06.07.2007 registered deeds of agreement bearing Nos.8705/07 & 8706/07 were executed by defendant No.1 through defendant No.2 in favor of the plaintiff and his wife respectively for apart/flat bearing No.-01/Gr. and apart/flat bearing No. 101/Al measuring 1000 sq. ft & 1350 sq. ft. respectively for consideration price of Rs. 9,30,000/- & Rs. 13,50,000/- respectively. The defendants failed to obtain NOC in respect of 1000sq.ft. open space on the ground floor. They kept on assuring the plaintiff of getting the permission or NOC stating that requisite steps were taken by them in this regard. The plaintiff, on Bonafide belief, continued to make payment and since 23.06.2006 till 05.09.2008 (on different dates) he and his wife together paid Rs.30,00,000/- to the defendants. The plaintiff paid Rs.12,00,000/- and his wife paid Rs.18,00,000/-.

5. Further case of the plaintiff is that on 23.06.2008 defendant No.2 informed him that frontage in front of 1000 sq. ft. area was not possible to be conveyed. The plaintiff then asked for providing alternative option of two bed room flat contiguous to three bed room flats but the defendants deferred the same till 1 week of July 2008. The plaintiff, on 0