1. A pure question of law raised in this second appeal is: Whether a decree for specific performance of land to be transferred from tribal to non-tribal can be granted subject to obtaining permission u/s 36A of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code?

2. The facts shorn of unnecessary details relevant for deciding this appeal may be stated as follows:

The appellant herein namely Babasaheb is the original plaintiff and the respondent Radhu is the original defendant. Radhu Barde belonging to tribal category by agreement dt.31.07.2001 agreed to sell his land of 80R. situated at Block No.41/1, Mandve (Bk.), Tq. Sangamner, to the plaintiff Babasaheb for Rs.2,25,000/-. The earnest amount of Rs. 1,55,000/-was paid. Accordingly, agreement in the form of deemed conveyance on full stamp duty was executed. Subsequently, in 2003 the possession was also delivered to Babasaheb and since 2003, he is enjoying the possession. On 10.01.2003, additional consideration of Rs. 65,000/was paid. Thus, out of Rs. 2,25,000/-, amount of Rs. 2,20,000/-was paid. Since there was no compliance of the terms of the agreement by the defendant, Spl. Civil Suit No. 11/2005 was filed by the present appellant for specific performance of the contract and in the alternative, for refund of earnest money of Rs. 2,20,000/-along with interest @ 6% pa.

3. The defendant took defence of total denial. According to him, the plaintiff practiced fraud upon him and got the said document executed which is a sham and bogus document. The suit land of restricted tenure could not be alienated without the prior permission of the competent authority. The ld. Civil Judge Sr. Divn., Sangamner framed issues. There was no specific issue whether specific performance can be granted in absence of prior permission. However, while deciding issue No.3 as to whether the plaintiff was entitled for specific performance or not, in para 29 the ld. trial Judge referred to Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to as "MLR Code") and the prohibition on transfer of occupancies and held that, the plaintiff was not entitled for specific performance. He therefore granted decree for refund of earnest amount with interest. The aggrieved plaintiff filed First Appeal No. 1703/2009 before this Court which was eventually transferred to District Court, Sangamner in view of change in pecuniary appellate jurisdiction of the courts. The learned Adhoc District Judge1, Sangamner by judgment dt. 13.12.2017 framed specific issue whether the agreement to sell is enforceable in view of embargo u/s 36A and dealt with in detail in para 48 to 61. He answered the issue in the negative and dismissed the appeal. Besides, he modified the judgment of trial Court and issued directions to the Collector to hold an enquiry. He awarded interest at higher rate of 10% p.a. from the date of the order and 14% p.a. from the date of decree besides past interest @6% upto 18.04.2004. He also issued direction of handing over the possession. Aggrieved plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

4. Mr. V.R. Dhorde, learned counsel for the appellant, persuasively argued that there are concurrent findings unchallenged to the effect that there was execution of agreement to sell and the plaintiff was otherwise entitled for specific performance of the contract but for his status as a non-tribal and the status of the defendant as tribal. He relied on Nathulal v Fulchand reported in 1969(3) SCC 120 and argued that, whenever any agreement to sell is executed and it cannot be specifically performed without permission or sanction of any authority, the suit can be decreed and decree for specific performance can be granted subject to obtaining such permission/sanction from the competent authority. He further argued that, the plaintiff has made full payment long back in 2001 and 2003 and he was put in possession. He is enjoying the possession by making full payment. In the circumstances, the decree for specific performance should have be