Key Points: - The court holds that the requirement of obtaining previous permission of the RBI under Section 31 is mandatory and transfers without such permission are unenforceable in law. (!) (!) (!) - The judgment states that a transaction in contravention of Section 31 is prohibited and would be unenforceable until permission is granted, with penalties under Section 50 and possible confiscation under Section 63. (!) (!) (!) - It overrules prior High Court decisions and declares that Section 31’s dispensations are mandatory, rendering gift deeds without RBI permission unenforceable; final relief decrees favor the plaintiff in O.S. No. 10079 of 1984. (!) (!) (!) - The decision distinguishes Section 31 from Section 29, noting ex post facto permission can be granted under Section 29 but not under Section 31. (!) (!) - The case cites the general policy that foreigners should not deal with real estate in India and that previous RBI permission is a prerequisite for transfer by non-citizens. (!) (!)

What is the effect of Section 31 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 on transfers of immovable property by foreigners in India?

What is the nature of the consequences for contravention of Section 31 (e.g., void, voidable, or unenforceable) as held by the Supreme Court in this case?

What is the court’s ruling regarding the enforceability of gift deeds executed without RBI permission under Section 31 of the 1973 Act?