A party to a fraudulent transaction cannot seek relief from the court.

( 1 ) THIS is plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by him in favour of defendant No. 1 on 17-10-1967 was a fictitious transaction as well as for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with his possession. A further relief was claimed asking the defendant No. 1 to return the consideration of the subsequent sale effected by him in favour of defendant No. 2 to 5.

( 2 ) THE trial court had decreed the suit. On appeal by the defendant No. 1 the decree passed by the trial court was set aside and the suit of the appellant was dismissed. Thereafter this second appeal.

( 3 ) THE second appeal was admitted on the following question of law"whether the decree for cancellation of the sale deed could be refused on the ground that the parties were pari-delicto although it was found that the sale deed was in fact a fictitious transaction entered into by the plaintiff with the object of defrauding his creditors. "

( 4 ) FOR the determination of the aforesaid question the relevant facts may be briefly stated thus: The plaint case was that the land detailed at the foot of the plaint was his bhumidhari and he was in possession of the same. The defendant No. 1 was very intimate to him. The plaintiff suffered heavy losses in business and had become indebted to a number of creditors. Accordingly with a view to save the property from attachment and sale at the instance of his creditors for the satisfaction of their debts, the plaintiff and the defendant No. 1 entered into a transaction in the shape of a sale deed in favour of the latter so that the property may go out of the reach of the creditors. In spite of the sale deed, however, the plaintiff continued in possession. Subsequently, the defendant No. 1 turned against the plaintiff for some reason and on the strength of that sale deed started asserting his title over the property and in pursuance of the same executed a sale deed of the disputed property in favour of defendant No. 2 to 5 who threatened to give effect of the sale deed as the suit.

( 5 ) TWO written statements were filed -one by the defendant No. 1 and the other by the defendants 2 to 5. The defendant No. 1 asserted that the sale deed was valid and is binding on the plaintiff and that it was wrong to say that same had been executed to defeat the interest of the creditors. The defence of the defendants 2 to 5, on the other hand, was that the defendant No. 1 was an ostensible owner and they have purchased the property in good faith and have paid valuable consideration. The suit was hence barred by Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act.

( 6 ) ON the pleadings of the parties, relevant issues were framed. The trial court accepted the case of the plaintiff as to the nature of the transaction and the circumstances in which it was entered into and decreed the suit.

( 7 ) ON appeal, the lower appellate court endorsed the finding of the trial court as to the true nature of the transaction and the intent with which the sale deed was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant No. 1. It however, disagreed with the trial court and held that in the facts and circumstances of the case the plaintiff was not entitled to be extended any assistance by the court in view of the fact that on his own showing that the plaintiff and defendant No. 1 had entered into a conspiracy with a view to save the property from the hands of the creditors and inasmuch as the plaintiff himself was the perpetrator of the fraud. He should not be granted any discretionary relief by the court in shape of declaration or injunction as no one ought to be permitted to take advantage of his own fraud.

( 8 ) IT is in this background that I have to examine this question posed by the learned Judge admitting the appeal that if the parties are in pari delicto in regard to the subject-matter of a suit the plaintiff cannot be granted any relief by the court.

( 9 ) THE point involved is we