Case title – Babasaheb Dhondiba Kute VS Radhu Vithoba Barde
Case no. – Civil Appeal No. OF 2024 [@ SLP(C) No.29462 OF 2019]
Decision on – February 15, 2024
Quoram – Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Augustine George Masih
Facts of the case
In this case, Babasaheb, the appellant and Radhu Barde, the respondent entered into an agreement to sell, in the year 2001, under which, the respondent agreed to sell his land of 80R situated at Block No.41/1, Mandve (Bk), Tq. Sangamner to the appellant for a total consideration of Rs.2,25,000/-. An advance amount of Rs.1,55,000/- was paid by the appellant to the respondent on the said date. Upon receiving the possession, in the year 2003 the appellant paid the remaining amount which summed up to Rs. 2,20,000/-
The respondent failed to perform his part of the contract to execute the sale deed. As a result, the appellant filed a Special Civil Suit before the trial Court seeking the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell. The trial court refused the decree of specific performance and granted the alternative relief of refund of Rs.2,20,000 with interest 6% p.a.
Subsequently, the First Appellate Court affirmed the decision of the Trial Court. Contesting this decision, the appellant preferred a second appeal, before the High Court.
The Court considered Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 and observed that such a decree for specific performance could not be granted and thereby, dismissed the second appeal. Hence, the appellant approached the Apex Court.
Issue – Whether a decree for specific performance of land to be transferred from tribal to non-tribal can be granted subject to obtaining permission u/s 36A of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement
The Supreme Court observed that there was neither a conflict on the issue of agreement to sell between the parties nor on the consideration amount paid for the possession of land. The Referring to Section 36A of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the Bench opined that the only restriction under the said section is requiring the non-tribal to make an application for a previous sanction before the State Government and obtain its approval for sale before any conveyance could be made between the tribal (respondent) and non-tribal (appellant).
It was also made clear by the Bench that the conveyance by way of sale would take place only at the time of registration of a sale deed in accordance with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 2008. Till then, there is no conveyance. Hence, the Court noted that there is no bar for a tribal to enter into an agreement to sell and seeking advance sale consideration except for the requisites of Section 36A, which mandates prior approval of the State Government.
Further, the Court pointed out that such a stage had not yet arisen in the instant case, as the defendant failed to perform his part of the agreement inasmuch as he did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The Bench added that if the defendant had come forward to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant, then it would have been the duty of the appellant to have proceeded under Section 36A of the Land Revenue Code and seek the requisite permission from the Collector.
The Bench in light of such observations held that on the basis of Section 36A, the trial Court, the first appellate court as well as the High Court ought to have granted the decree for specific performance to the appellant considering the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 rather than granting an alternative relief.
The Court, further relied on the case of Nathulal v. Fulchand, quoted by the appellant, wherein it was held that when an agreement to sale is executed but it cannot be specifically performed without permission or sanction of any authority, the suit can be decreed and decree for specific performance can be granted subject to obtaining such permission from the competent authority.
The Apex Court, therefore, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief specific performance of the agreement to sell. The Court, subject to the relief, also directed the appellant to comply with the requisites under Section 36A before seeking conveyance of the land from the respondent.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed by – Keerthi K
