Section 65 of the Act deals with the doctrine of reimbursement of benefits obtained as a result of agreements that have been proven to be void and contracts that have become void. This type of validity concerns an agreement that has never resulted in a contract. But the parties found out at a later date. The principle set out in this article means that if the parties have entered into an apparently valid contract and certain benefits have been transferred under it and the contract is subsequently declared null and void or becomes void, the party that received the benefits must return them to the other. Thus, the article does not apply to a contract of which the parties were aware at the time of cancellation.  The concept of agreements whose object or consideration is illegal in its entirety is based on the Latin term «in pari delicto». The expression `nullity` constitutes a certain difficulty in the case of agreements which are void on grounds of unlawful examination (paragraphs 23 and 24). It appears that this article does not apply to agreements which are void under article 24 on account of consideration or unlawful object. The reason for this is that if the unlawful objective or a substantial part of it has been achieved, the money paid cannot be recovered, since the parties are then also at fault and in pari delicto melior est conditio possidentis.
However, there is one exception to this rule: for example, the manufacture or sale of excise items is prohibited under the Excise Tax Act, except with a government licence. For this reason, the sale of spirits without a licence is prohibited under the Excise Duty Act and therefore illegal. A contract concluded in violation of a legal prohibition is null and void, whether express or implied prohibition. In short, all agreements involving violations of laws adopted to protect or promote the public interest are void. Initial agreement to perform an act that is inherently impossible If the object or consideration for an agreement is the performance of an act prohibited by law, the agreement is null and void. Acts or undertakings prohibited by law are those that are punishable by law, as well as those prohibited (expressly or implicitly) by special acts of Parliament and state legislators. However, in order to render an agreement illegal and void on the basis of a fraudulent purpose or consideration, fraud must be proven beyond any doubt and cannot be based on mere suspicions and assumptions. For example, a person borrowed 100 rupees and in return performed an obligation in favour of the lender, including the claimant in this case. Thus, the first example refers to agreements that are void under §§ 25-30 of the Act, while the second example concerns agreements that are void from the outset, as indicated in section 23 of the Act (unlawful consideration or object). The usual task of the courts is to rely on the firm leaders of public order and to apply them to different situations. For example, A, the manager of a company, agrees to hand over a contract to B if he pays an amount of Rs 5,000 to the former privately.
The agreement tends to create an interest against the obligation and is void because of the trade of the civil service. Example 1: A promises B to drop a charge he brought against B for theft, while B promises to restore the value of the things he took with him. .