The main legal point established is that an agreement for specific performance of a granted land without obtaining prior permission as required by the PTCL Act is void and unenforceable. However, alternative relief may be sought under the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

JUDGMENT

1. This Revision Petition is filed by defendant No.11 in O.S.No.208/2008 pending trial before the Senior Civil Judge at Doddaballapur (henceforth referred to as 'Trial Court'), challenging an Order dtd. 10/9/2012 by which an application filed by him under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Sec. 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (henceforth referred to as 'CPC' for short) was rejected.

2. The suit in O.S.No.208/2008 was filed for specific performance of an agreement of sale dtd. 9/6/2007 executed by the defendant Nos.1 to 10, agreeing to sell the land bearing old Sy.No.15, new Sy.No.113 situate at Menasi village, Kasaba Hobli, Doddaballapur taluk measuring 3 acres 3 guntas for a total sale consideration of '.22,90,875/-. The plaintiff claimed that he had paid a sum of '.6,00,000/- as part of agreed sale consideration and the balance was to be paid at the time of registration of a deed of absolute sale, which was to be after obtaining permission from the State Government to sell the property.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant No.1 who denied the execution of sale agreement dtd. 9/6/2007. He contended that the suit property was granted to him and as he belonged to the depressed class. He sought and obtained permission from the State Government under Sec. 4(2) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (henceforth referred to as the 'PTCL Act') on 17/10/2007 and thereafter sold it to the defendant No.11 on 28/6/2008.

4. The defendant No.11 also contested the suit and claimed that the alleged sale agreement dtd. 9/6/2007 was not enforceable in a Court of law as it was contrary to the provisions of Sec. 4(2) of the PTCL Act. She claimed that she was the lawful purchaser who purchased the suit property in terms of a sale deed dtd. 28/6/2008 registered on 14/8/2008. The defendant No.11 filed an application on 12/1/2011 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Sec. 151 of CPC to reject the plaint as an agreement to transfer the suit property without the prior consent of the State Government was void ab initio and therefore, a suit to enforce the contract was not maintainable.

5. The application was contested by the plaintiff who contended that there was no provision in the PTCL Act that prohibited the filing of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale, more particularly when the agreement of sale mandated that the sale would be completed after obtaining the permission of the State Government. The Trial Court posted the case for issues by 5/11/2012.

6. The Trial Court considered the contentions raised by the defendant No.11 and held that though the defendant Nos.1 to 10 had agreed to obtain the permission to alienate the suit property, that itself would not attract Sec. 4 of the PTCL Act. The Trial Court held that the application filed by the defendant No.11 cannot be considered and the plaint cannot be rejected. Hence, it rejected the application in terms of an order dtd. 10/9/2012.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the present Revision Petition is filed.

8. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.11 contended that an agreement of sale is in respect of a granted land which amounts to transfer under Sec. 3(e) of the PTCL Act and therefore, the agreement set up by the plaintiff is unenforceable in law. He submitted that if the suit is not maintainable on the face of it, this Court should exercise power under Order VII Rule 11(d) of CPC to reject the plaint. He relied upon the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SOPAN SUKHDEO SABLE AND OTHERS vs. ASSISTANT CHARITY COMMISSIONER AND OTHERS [(2004) 3 SCC 137]. He further invited the attention of this Court to the judgment of a Co-Ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SMT. NARASAMMA AND OTHERS vs. K.V.RAMPRASAD [ILR 2012 KAR 4261]. He also relied upon the Judgment of this Court in the case of SMT. P.VASANTHI vs. SMT. VIMALA MARTIN AND ANOTHER [I