Back
Karnataka High Court
VENKATANARAYANAPPA - Appellant
Versus
SIDDAPPA - Respondent
Decided On : 02-08-07
Regular Second Appeal No. 1668 of 2005.
Cases Referred: AIR 1970 SC 546; AIR 2001 Bom 364; ILR 1995 Kar 259.
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 20 - Specific performance - Suit for - Suit land covered by PTCL Act - Agreement of sale in respect of - Cannot be enforced - Granting decree for specific performance of such agreement subject to permission of Government would not arise. [N. Kumar, J.]: When the legislature declares that the transfer in contravention of Section 4(2) of the Act is null and void, no contract in the eye of law has come into existence. The legislature did not stop there. It made its intentions explicitly clear by further declaring that "no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer". An agreement to sell the granted land under the Act, is opposed to Section 4(2) of the Act, and therefore is not a contract. It is also opposed to public policy. Therefore, it is not enforceable in Court of law. The suit agreement entered into between the parties is contrary to express provision contained in law and therefore it is hit by Section 4(2) of the Act and it is void ab intito. The said agreement is not a contract which could be enforced in a court of law. In that view of the matter, granting a decree for specific performance subject to the permission to be obtained by either of the parties from the Government to complete the sale transaction would not arise.
Cases Referred: AIR 1970 SC 546; AIR 2001 Bom 364; ILR 1995 Kar 259.
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Act, 1978 -Section 4 - Alienation of granted land - For alienation of granted land after coming the Act into force, previous sanction of Government is compulsory - Scope of the word Previous . [N. Kumar, J.]: Section 4 which deals with prohibition of transfer of granted lands starts with an non-obstante clause. it states notwithstanding anything in any law, agreement, contract or instrument, any transfer of granted land made either before or after the commencement of this Act, in contravention of the terms of the grant of such land or the law providing for such grant, or sub-section (2) shall be null and void and no right, title or interest in such land shall be conveyed or be deemed ever to have conveyed by such transfer. Sub-section (2) of Section 4 provides for the permission of the Government for such transfer. But the way the said sub-section is worded makes it clear that no person shall, after the commencement of this Act transfer or acquire by transfer any granted land without the previous permission of the Government. Sub-section 4(1) deals with transfer of lands being in violation of the terms of the grant before the Act came into force. but sub-section (2) deals with transfer of lands after the Act came into force. In other words, even if the transfer is not in contravention of the terms of the grant, but if that transfer takes place after the Act came into force, such transfer requires previous permission of the Government. Therefore for all transfers subsequent to the passing of the Act, previous permission of the Government is a must otherwise it would be null and void.
Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (PTCL) Act, 1978 - Section 4 - Alienation of granted land - Agreement for sale - suit for specific performance of - Cannot be decreed subject to permission of Government for alienation.
Cases Referred: AIR 1970 SC 546; AIR 2001 Bom 364; ILR 1995 Kar 259.
This is plaintiffs second appeal.
2. Defendant is the owner of the suit property bearing Sy. No. 576 (old Sy. No. 319/2) measuring 1 acre 22 guntas situated at Venkatapura, Kasaba Hobli, Pavagada Taluk, Tumkur District. Plaintiff entered into an agreement of sale to purchase the said land from the defendant for a sale consideration of Rs. 2,500/- on 28-4-1987. It is his case that a sum of Rs. 1,000/- was paid as advance on the date of the agreement which the defendant received to discharge the loan due to one VSSN Venkatapura, a Society, when the said society has brought the property for sale. However, the sale agreement was reduced into writing on 29-4-1987. A sum of Rs. 1,200/- was paid under the aforesaid agreement on 18-8-1987 which is endorsed on the agreement in front of the witnesses. The balance sale consideration of Rs. 300/- was to be paid before the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration of the sale deed. All the documents pertaining to the suit schedule property were delivered by the defendant to the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that he is in possession of the property raising crops. The plaintiff requested the defendant to execute the sale deed. When the defendant did not comply with their demand he was constrained to issue notice on 6-10-1990. However, the plaintiff received suit summons in O.S. No. 333 of 1990 from the Court where the defendant had filed a suit for a decree of permanent injunction against the plaintiff. It is his case that by virtue of injunction order granted, the plaintiff was dispossessed from the suit schedule property. In those circumstances, plaintiff was constrained to file a suit in O.S. No. 201 of 1991 for specific performance of the agreement of sale, and for possession.
3. Defendant after service of notice entered appearance, filed written statement denying the execution of the agreement of sale and receipt of consideration. He admitted filing of the suit by him and he sought for dismissal of the suit. Defendant's suit O.S. No. 333 of 1990 was clubbed together with the plaintiffs suit O.S. No. 201 of 1991. Separate issues were framed in both the suits. However, a common trial was held. Both the parties adduced oral and documentary evidence. The Trial Court decreed the suit of the defendant for permanent injunction reserving liberty to the plaintiff to take possession in pursuance of the decree passed in O.S. No. 201 of 1991. In the plaintiffs suit the Trial Court held, suit agreement is established, payment of consideration as set out in the plaint under the agreement is also established, balance sale consideration payable is only Rs. 300/- and plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract. It is the defendant who avoided to execute the sale deed and therefore it held, the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for specific performance. The Trial Court also noticed that the suit schedule property is a granted land to the defendant who belonged to Scheduled Caste. Therefore, in view of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (for short, hereinafter referred to as 'the Ace), permission of the Government is required before sale deed could be executed. Therefore, the decree of specific performance was subject to such permission being granted by the Government. It was also made clear, if the defendant fails to apply and obtain such permission it is open to the plaintiff to get a Commissioner appointed through Court and the Commissioner would seek permission from the Government and after getting such permission sale deed is to be executed. The suit of the defendant for permanent injunction was also decreed. The plaintiff accepted the judgment and decree of the Trial Court in O.S. No. 333 of 1990 and did not challenge the same. However, it is the defendant who preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree in O.S. No. 201 of 1991.
4. The lower Appellate Court on consideration of the entir
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
