IMPORTANT POINT
Agreements that contravene statutory provisions and public policy are unenforceable, and parties must act within a reasonable time to fulfill contractual obligations to seek specific performance.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard Mr Kantak for the appellant and Mr Kakodkar for the respondents.

2. This Second Appeal challenges the Judgment and Decree dtd. 22/2/2021 made by the Appeal Court in Regular Civil Appeal No.91/2019 dismissing the appellant's (plaintiff's) suit for specific performance.

3. Mr. Kantak, the learned counsel for the appellant urges the formulation of the following substantial questions of law, which according to him, arise in this appeal:-

<WXY>(A) Whether the reasoning of the learned District Judge of the applicability of Sec. 2 of the Goa land Use Act and consequently Sec. 23 of the Indian Contract Act could be said to be applicable when the competent authority viz. the Mamlatdar under the GDD Agricultural Tenancy Act had held Shamba Kavlekar not to be a tenant and when the respondent too contended that Shamba Kavlekar was not tenant.

(B) Whether the learned District Judge could have interpreted the wordings "one year from the date the plaintiffs obtain all the relevant permissions from the competent authorities for carrying out construction in the suit property" to hold the applicability of Sec. 46 of the Indian Contract Act that no time for specific performance is specified.</WXY>

4. Mr. Kantak submits that in this case Shamba Kavlekar was never declared as a tenant under the provisions of the Goa Agricultural Tenancy Act. He therefore submits that there was no vesting of property in the said alleged tenant. In the absence of vesting, the provisions of the Goa Land Use (Regulation) Act, 1991 were not attracted. Therefore, the appeal court erred in holding that the agreement, of which specific performance was applied for, was opposed to public policy or otherwise hit by the provisions of Sec. 23 of the Contract Act.

5. Mr. Kantak submitted that in terms of Clause 2(b) of the agreement dtd. 25/10/1996, the balance consideration of Rs.6.5 lakhs had to be paid to the respondents within a period of one year of obtaining all the relevant permissions from the competent authorities for carrying out construction on the said property. He submits that the construction permissions were admittedly not obtained. Notice was served by the respondents concerning this agreement on 18/4/2012. Within three months, the appellant offered to pay the entire balance consideration even though no permissions had been obtained. Mr Kantak submits that in such circumstances neither did the bar of limitation apply nor can it be said that there was any lack of readiness and willingness on the appellant's part to comply with his part of the bargain. Mr Kantak submits that considering this factual situation, provisions of Sec. 46 of the Contract Act were not attracted.

6. In the above regard, the following averments in paragraph 7 of the plaint are quite telling:

<WXY>"7. That in terms already agreed upon in the discussions and settled upon by the Plaintiff with Smt. Mira Shamba Kavlekar and Smt. Ashwini Ashakant Kavlekar, a tripartite Agreement dtd. 25/10/1996 and was entered into between the Defendants as the owners of the property, the plaintiff and Smt. Mira Shamba Kavlekar and Smt. Ashwini Ashakant Kavlekar, the heirs of Late Shamba Janu Kavlekar, this agreement executed before the Notary Shri Ashok S. Mashelkar under No.2977 on 25/10/1996. In terms of this Agreement, it was agreed that the heirs of Late Shamba Janu Kavlekar would declare that the name of Late Shamba Janu Kavlekar was erroneously recorded in the Survey Records and the Plaintiff in return was to give them an amount of Rs.1,00,000.00 at the time of execution of the Agreement and thereafter a double bedroom Flat admeasuring a Super Built up area of 80 square metres to be located on the First floor of the Building to be constructed on the SUIT PROPERTY."</WXY>

7. Mr Kakodkar, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the appeal court was justified in invoking the provisions of Sec. 2 of the Goa land Use (Regulation) Act 1991. He submits that the appeal court was justified