The main legal point established in the judgment is that an agreement is void if its performance necessarily entails disobedience to the law, as per Section 23 of the Contract Act.

( 1 ) AN successful plaintiff who sued for specific performance of n agreement of sale executed by the defendant in his favour on July 20, 1958, under which he agreed to convey to the plaintiff two lands bearing survey Nos. 5 and 12 in the village of Pattihal in the District of Belgaum, measuring 41 acres and 26 guntas in the aggregate for a sum of Rs. 32,000 is the appellant before us. That agreement is Exhibit 32 which recited that out of the consideration for the sale, a sum of rs. 2,000 was set off against an outstanding liability of the defendant on accounts, and that a postdated cheque for Rs. 5,000 bearing the date September 1, 1958, was also delivered by the plaintiff to the defendant on the date of the agreement. The further recital was that the balance of rs. 25,000 should be paid at the time of registration. The date fixed for performance was March 9, 1959.

( 2 ) THE Plaintiff stated that he issued a notice to the Defendant on February 26, 1959 demanding performance but that any such notice was received by the Defendant was denied. However that may be, the suit out of which this appeal arises was brought on March 10, 1959, in which the plaintiff sought a decree for specific performance and possession, and, alternatively, damages of rs. 10,000.

( 3 ) THE Defendant resisted the suit on at least two grounds. The first was that there was an abandonment of the agreement by the plaintiff in consequence of the realisation that the execution of the sale deed would transgress the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and agricultural Lands Act. The Second was that the agreement was a void agreement for the reason that its performance would result in a transgression of the provisions of that Act.

( 4 ) THE first plea that there was an abandonment of the agreement was repelled by the Civil judge. But on the second, the Civil Judge pronounced in favour of the Defendant taking the view that the suit agreement was void.

( 5 ) THE Plaintiff appeals.

( 6 ) WHILE on behalf of the plaintiff, the argument advanced by Mr. Raja Iyer was that the agreement was void, Mr. V. L. Narasimhamurthy for the Defendant challenged the correctness of the finding that there was no abandonment of argument that the Civil Judge should have recorded a finding on the first issue that the plaintiff was never ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement.

( 7 ) IT would be convenient in the first instance to consider the argument directed against the correctness of the finding that there was no abandonment of the agreement of sale. In paragraph 6 of his written statement, what was contended by the defendant was that the suit agreement was cancelled in the presence of a certain Shivaji for the reason that the Plaintiff realised that a sale deed pursuant to the agreement could not be executed as the execution of that sale deed would offend against the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. It was also stated by the Defendant that the agreement was returned to the custody of the defendant by shivaji who was the mediate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the postdated cheque which was given by the plaintiff to the Defendant was also similarly returned to the plaintiff.

( 8 ) THE Civil Judge was of the view that that story told by the defendant could not be believed. The main reason assigned by the Civil Judge for reaching that conclusion was that Shivaji did not support the case for the plaintiff (sic) when he was examined on the earlier occasion soon after the summons had been issued to the defendant. It is seen from the record that the Civil judge adopted a somewhat unusual procedure in recording the evidence in this case. At a certain stage along with the issue of summons to the defendants, the Civil Judge issued summons to shivaji to appear before him and his evidence was record on August 3, 1959, in the absence of the defendant. What was stated be Shivaji on the occasion was that the suit agreemen