But the case of Dwarampudi Nagaratnamba v Kunuku Ramatta brought a new aspect to this case. In this case, a gift was executed by the Cartea of the house for the benefit of his concubine and this gift was common characteristics of the family. This deed of donation was invalidated, but not because it was an earlier consideration for sexual services, as the donation was not the subject of the contract. This was established more clearly in Pyare Mohan against Narayani that despite adulterous married life; The act of donation performed in favour of the woman was not the ”object” of the agreement and therefore not the consideration. There was therefore no immoral reasoning, the act of donation was deemed enforceable. The scope of the word ”immoral” according to N.K. Garg`s case of immorality is a highly subjective notion that depends on the principles of morality that prevail in a given area and at a given time with the approval of the courts. Thus, there are certain acts that were once considered immoral and contrary to moral norms and which have therefore been deemed unenforceable by the courts, but at the same time, there are certain acts which have always been considered immoral and which nevertheless remain the same change of time. It was said in Andrew v. Parker that the current norms of moral norms prevailing in the community should be used to judge the immorality of an action. ”… A law-free contract has no legal effect.
An illegal contract, similar to the nullity contract, since it also has no legal value between the direct parties, has the effect that has followed since then that even transactions that are too guaranteed with it are illegal and that, therefore, we are not applicable in certain circumstances. Where an agreement is merely a guarantee for another agreement or constitutes aid that facilitates the implementation of the purpose of the other agreement, which, although cancelled, is not prohibited by law, it can be applied as a security agreement. On the other hand, if it is part of a law enforcement mechanism that is effectively prohibited, it cannot claim the agreement, because it is tainted by the illegality of the object sought, which is covered by the law. If a person entering into an illegal contract explicitly or implicitly promises that the contract is innocent, such a promise amounts to a guarantee agreement with the other party, if it is in fact innocent of Turpitude, may sue for damages. The first types of agreements falling under the category of immorality are those entered into by the parties to obtain a divorce from the third party. Thus, an agreement, Baivijli v. Nansa Nagar, in which a woman received money from a man to end her married life by divorcing her husband and, therefore, deemed it illegal and not aeigale with the promise of marrying him, and therefore the donated money was declared non-refundable. Similarly, cases where agreements are reached between the parties, where a party that promises to marry the other after the death of its spouse or after divorce from its partner, are considered immoral and therefore illegal. Under the Contracts Act, one of the main reasons for the validity of a contract is objectivity and consideration.