Payments made for securing employment that violate public policy are unenforceable, rendering any related agreement void.

JUDGMENT

R. Narayana Pisharad i , J Is the money paid as consideration for getting appointment as a teacher in a recognised aided school, legally recoverable from the person to whom it was paid? This is the question which essentially falls for consideration in this appeal.

2. The appellants are defendants 1 to 4 in the suit O.S.No.62 of 2004 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Mavelikkara. The first respondent in the appeal is the plaintiff and the second respondent is the fifth defendant in the suit.

3. One Madhu was the manager of a school. On

13.03.2001, the plaintiff paid Rs.1,75,000/- to Madhu and the fifth defendant as advance towards the amount agreed to be paid by him for appointing him as a drawing teacher in the school. On the same day, Madhu executed an agreement stating that he had borrowed Rs.1,75,000/- from the plaintiff. This agreement was executed as a security for the amount paid by the plaintiff to Madhu. In April, 2001, the plaintiff paid a further amount of Rs.15,000/-. Madhu died on 9th September, 2001. The first defendant is the wife and defendants 2 to 4 are the children of Madhu. The fifth defendant is his sister. After some months, the plaintiff approached them requesting them to arrange the job for him. They did not take any step for appointing him as teacher in the school. They also did not repay the amount paid by him. The plaintiff is entitled to realise the amount of Rs.1,90,000/- with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the defendants. This is the case of the plaintiff in the suit.

4. Defendants 2 to 4 were minors at the time of institution of the suit. They were represented in the suit by the first defendant. Defendants 1 to 4 filed a written statement in the suit disputing the claim made by the plaintiff regarding payment of money by him to Madhu. They also contended that the agreement produced by the plaintiff is a forged and fabricated document.

5. The fifth defendant filed a separate written statement in the suit denying the claim of the plaintiff regarding payment of money as consideration for appointing him as teacher in the school. The fifth defendant also disputed the execution of any agreement by Madhu.

6. The trial court framed necessary issues in the suit. PWs

1 to 4 were examined and Exts.A1 to A6 documents were marked on the side of the plaintiff during the trial of the suit. The first defendant was examined as DW1 and Exts.B1 to B3 documents were marked on her side. On appreciation of the evidence adduced by the parties, the lower court found that Madhu had executed Ext.A1 agreement and that he had received Rs.1,75,000/- from the plaintiff as consideration for appointing him as a teacher in the school. The lower court further found that the plaintiff is entitled to realise the aforesaid amount with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the estate of Madhu inherited by defendants 1 to 4. The lower court also found that the fifth defendant is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff and dismissed the suit against her. Aggrieved by the decree passed against them, defendants 1 to 4 have filed this appeal.

7. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and also the first respondent.

8. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the trial court has misread the evidence in reaching the finding that Ext.A1 is a document executed by Madhu. Learned counsel would submit that the evidence adduced by the plaintiff does not prove the execution of Ext.A1 document by Madhu. Learned counsel would also contend that Ext.A1 document is not an agreement but it is a bond, that it is an insufficiently stamped document and that it was wrongly admitted in evidence by the lower court. He further contended that the transaction alleged by the plaintiff is opposed to public policy, that the consideration for that transaction is illegal and that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover the amount, if any, paid by him in such a transaction.

9. Per contra, the learned coun