Agreements executed in violation of statutory prohibitions, particularly in land transactions, are void and unenforceable, reflecting principles of law against illegal agreements.

JUDGMENT :

G. BASAVARAJA, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff on admission.

2. The appellant/plaintiff has preferred this regular second appeal against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.02.2011 passed by the Principal Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikodi (for short ‘the trial Court’) in O.S.No.17/2007, which is confirmed by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Chikodi (for short, ‘the first appellate Court’) in R.A.No.8/2011 as per the Judgment and Decree dated 01.04.2025.

3. Parties herein are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

-

4. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that, the plaintiff has filed the suit for specific performance of contract as per the Agreement of Sale dated 31.05.1997 against the defendant.

5. Defendant appeared and contested the suit by filing the objections. Based on the pleadings, the trial Court framed 08 issues and one additional issue. To prove the case of plaintiff, four witnesses were examined as P.W.1 to P.W.4 and 16 documents were marked as Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.16. On closure of plaintiff’s evidence, defendant adduced his evidence as D.W.1 and two documents were marked as Ex.D.1 and Ex.D.2.

6. Having heard the arguments of both sides, the trial Court has decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part directing to return the earnest money and denied the relief of specific performance. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court, the plaintiff preferred the appeal before the first appellate Court in R.A.No.8/2011, which came to be dismissed on 01.04.2025. Being aggrieved by Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court as well as by the first appellate Court, the plaintiff has preferred this regular second appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that the Judgment and Decree passed by the trial Court as well as the first appellate Court are contrary to the well established principles of law and facts of the case. The first appellate Court has not at all appreciated the evidence on record in proper and judicious manner and both Courts have erroneously held that the Agreement of Sale dated 31.05.1997 is hit by the Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the KLR Act, 1961’) and denied the relief of specific performance. It is further submitted that the Agreement of Sale was executed between the parties on 31.05.1997 pursuant to the original grant order dated 27.11.1981, as such the agreement in question has been executed after 15 years from the date of original grant order, the same was valid and enforceable in the eye of law. It is also submitted that the order dated 27.11.1981 was set aside by this Court in a writ petition and matter was remanded back to the Land Tribunal for fresh consideration. However, the fact remains that as on the date of agreement, the order dated 27.11.1981 passed by the Land Tribunal was in operation and as such, the subsequent developments cannot negate the existing rights of the parties. On all these grounds he sought for formulation of substantial question of law.

8. The first appellate Court has assigned reasons for dismissing the regular appeal in paragraph Nos.11 to 16, which reads as under :

-

“11. Point Nos.1 and 2:- In order to avoid the repetition of facts these points are taken together for common consideration. The short point which arises for consideration in this appeal is in regard to the bar contemplated under the provisions of Karnataka Land Reforms Act in alienation of property and thereby turning down the request of specific performance of contract. The Trial court has refused to grant the relief of specific performance of contract on the score that as on the date of execution of agreement of sale the