Does in pari delicto always stop recovery?

No. If the parties are not equally at fault, the illegal purpose was not carried out, or the claim does not rely on illegality, recovery can be allowed.

Who had to prove the jewellery was returned?

The defendant. The Court found no convincing proof that the jewellery was handed back to the plaintiff.

Can a fiduciary keep property because it was given for an improper aim?

No. A trustee-like holder must return the property; they cannot rely on the other party’s purpose to refuse.

Is the son liable from joint family property?

Yes, unless the father’s debt is avyavaharika (illegal or immoral). That was not proved here, so liability remained.

sita-ram-v-radha-bai-air-1968-sc-534

Sita Ram v. Radha Bai — In Pari Delicto Limits, Fiduciary Duty & Joint Family Liability

Author: Gulzar Hashmi India CASE_TITLE: Sita Ram v. Radha Bai PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: in pari delicto, fiduciary duty, entrustment SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: avyavaharika debt, joint family liability PUBLISH_DATE: 22 Oct 2025 Slug: sita-ram-v-radha-bai-air-1968-sc-534

Quick Jump

Summary Issues Rules Facts Arguments Judgment Ratio Why It Matters Key Takeaways Mnemonic IRAC Glossary FAQs Related

Hero image for Sita Ram v. Radha Bai case explainer

Quick Summary

Key idea: Even if property is entrusted for an improper reason, the holder in a fiduciary position must return it. In pari delicto (equal fault) does not block recovery when the parties are not equally guilty, the illegal plan was not carried out, or the claim does not rely on the illegality. The debt here was not avyavaharika, so the joint family property could be used to satisfy liability.

In Pari Delicto Fiduciary Duty AIR 1968 SC 534

Issues

Was the suit maintainable despite the alleged improper purpose behind entrusting jewellery to Lachhmi Narain?
Was the jewellery actually returned; if not, is the appellant bound to return it or pay its value?
Is the liability enforceable against the joint family property in the hands of the appellant?

Rules

In pari delicto—limits: If parties are not equally at fault, or the illegal plan was not carried out, or the claim avoids relying on illegality, recovery is allowed.
Fiduciary duty: A trustee-like holder cannot refuse to return entrusted property by pointing to the other party’s improper aim.
Avyavaharika debt: Burden to prove illegality/immorality is on the person denying liability. If not proved, sons are liable from joint family property for the father’s debts.
Burden of proof: The defendant had to prove return of jewellery; mere circumstances are not enough.

Facts — Timeline

15 Apr 1942: Plaintiff Radhabai entrusts gold/pearl/diamond jewellery (₹32,379/6/-) to her brother Lachhmi Narain for safe custody.

Jul 1943: Lachhmi Narain dies. Plaintiff asks his son Sita Ram to return the jewellery.

Defence: Sita Ram claims the jewellery had already been returned during Lachhmi Narain’s lifetime.

Trial Court: Dismisses suit, holding jewellery was returned on 23 Apr 1942.

High Court (Allahabad): Reverses; decrees return within a month or payment of value from the estate.

Supreme Court: Affirms High Court; appeal dismissed with costs.

Arguments (Appellant vs Respondent)

Appellant (Sita Ram)

Jewellery was returned; suit not maintainable due to alleged improper purpose.
Liability, if any, is avyavaharika and cannot bind joint family property.

Respondent (Radhabai)

Entrustment created a fiduciary duty; jewellery never returned.
In pari delicto does not apply; no proof of immoral/illegal debt.

Judgment

Held: The suit was maintainable. The defendant failed to prove that the jewellery was returned. A fiduciary cannot refuse to restore entrusted property because of an alleged improper aim of the bailor. The alleged debt was not shown to be avyavaharika; therefore, liability was enforceable against the joint family property. Appeal dismissed; High Court decree affirmed.

Ratio Decidendi

Limits of in pari delicto: unequal guilt, non-execution of illegal plan, or claim independent of illegality allows recovery.
Fiduciary must return entrustment; cannot rely on the other party’s purpose.
Avyavaharika is a narrow exception; burden is on the challenger. Not proved here.

Why It Matters

Protects trust-based dealings and prevents unjust enrichment. Clarifies when family assets can answer for a deceased father’s obligations under Hindu law.

Key Takeaways

In pari delicto is not a blanket shield—look at fault and reliance.
Entrustment = duty to return unless return is proved.
Joint family property can be liable if the debt is not avyavaharika.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “NOT EQUAL, NOT ILLEGAL RETURN.”

Not equal fault? In pari delicto may not bar.
Not carried out? Recovery allowed.
Return duty: Fiduciary must restore or pay value; family assets liable unless debt is avyavaharika.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Maintainability despite alleged improper purpose; proof of return; enforceability against joint family property.
Rule	Limits on in pari delicto; fiduciary duty to return; burden to prove avyavaharika lies on challenger; sons liable unless illegality shown.
Application	No proof of return; claim did not rely on illegality; no evidence of immoral/illegal debt; fiduciary obligation stands.
Conclusion	Decree for return/value upheld; liability enforceable against joint family property; appeal dismissed.

Glossary

In Pari Delicto: “In equal fault.” If parties are equally guilty, courts generally will not help either—but there are exceptions.
Fiduciary: A person in a position of trust who must act in the other’s best interests and return entrusted property.
Avyavaharika Debt: A debt that is illegal or immoral under Hindu law; sons are not liable for such debts from joint family assets.

FAQs

No. If the court can decide without relying on the illegality, or the plan was not carried out, recovery is possible.

The holder (defendant). Without convincing proof, the duty to return or pay value remains.

When the debt is avyavaharika—illegal or immoral. The person alleging this must prove it.