2020 Supreme(Kar) 121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
N.S. SANJAY GOWDA, J.
D.B. Thagaraj S/o T. Vasu – Appellant
Versus
Sri. Jayappa S/o Late Narayanappa – Respondent
R.S.A. No. 1727 of 2016
Decided On : 28-02-2020

Headnote:

PTCL Act - Section 4 - Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Act - Indefeasible right to secure Sale-Deed – Dishonor of cheque - It was case of plaintiff that suit property had been granted in favor of 1st defendant by Tahsildar and a grant certificate had been issued to him and Agreement stipulated that seller was required to obtain permission from Government and after obtaining permission he was required to inform purchaser and within a week thereof sale was to be concluded - It was stated therein that a sum out of advance amount was paid who was holder of an earlier Agreement of Sale and further sum was to be paid second agreement holder and out of balance amount was paid by cheque and a further sum of was paid in cash - It was case of plaintiff that seller was evasive and was avoiding concluding of transaction - He stated that without notice to him seller had obtained permission from Tahsildar for selling property and within a day thereafter had proceeded to sell suit property to 2nd defendant - He stated that since he had an indefeasible right to secure Sale-Deed by virtue of being earlier agreement holder he was entitled to seek for specific performance of contract and for consequential execution of Sale-Deed – Held, Appellate Court on appreciation of evidence has recorded a clear finding of fact that Agreement of Sale had been executed by 1stdefendant and he himself had admitted his signature during his cross-examination - Appellate Court has also taken note of fact that though 1st defendant claimed to have sold property to 2nd defendant nevertheless Sale-Deed executed by him in favor of 2nd defendant was actually produced by 1st defendant and it was therefore clear that defendants had not come to Court with clean hands - Appellate Court has also taken note of fact that 1st defendant in fact stated that he did not know why he signed an Agreement of Sale and his conduct in trying to deny all his signatures establishes that his only intention before Court was to wriggle out of contract that he entered into - Appellate Court has noticed that all documents in relation to suit property including original grant certificate had been handed over to plaintiff and therefore execution of Agreement of Sale could not be denied - In instant case earlier agreement holder has been examined and he has also stated before Court that he had entered into an agreement and plaintiff had paid him that part of consideration which he was entitled to receive from 1st defendant on his agreement being dissolved - In view of fact that Agreement of Sale has been held to be proved consequential direction by Appellate Court to conclude sale transaction by granting a decree cannot be found fault with - But instant case is a case of a granted land under PTCL Act in which there is no absolute bar for transfer as found in Karnataka Land Reforms Act - As stated earlier PTCL Act and Grant itself provide for a transfer of land subject however to securing a permission from Government – Thus said judgment of Apex Court would have no application to present case - Apex Court was dealing with a case of an Agreement of Sale which had been executed before commencement of PTCL Act and in that regard Apex Court took view that sale would not render Section 4(1) inapplicable - In instant case as Agreement of Sale itself stipulated that proposed transfer would happen on Government granting permission for transfer question of parties being in violation of law would not arise – Similarly decision of Apex Court in wherein it was held that relief cannot be granted if a contract was invalid or unenforceable would also be inapplicable to present case since Agreement of Sale in instant case was valid and also enforceable - Reliance placed by learned counsel for appellant on decision by this Court in case to support his argument that even for entering into an Agreement of Sale previous permission of Government is condition precedent can have no application because in that case this Court was not dealing with a situation in which Agreement of Sale itself contained a clause stating that proposed Transfer was subject to Government granting permission for transfer – Appeal is accordingly dismissed