IMPORTANT POINT
An agreement for the sale of agricultural land is unenforceable if it lacks the consent of all co-owners and if it contravenes provisions of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

1. Heard learned counsel for appellant.

2. None for the respondents, though served.

3. Being aggrieved by the Judgment and Decree passed on 30/08/2017, by the learned Ad-hoc District Judge - 3, Nagpur in Regular Civil Appeal No. 79/2016, whereby the Judgment and Decree passed by the 6th Joint Civil Judge Junior Division, Nagpur on 19/11/2015 in Regular Civil Suit No. 821/2012 (New) Special Civil Suit No. 376/2005 (Old) is maintained by dismissing the appeal preferred by the appellant.

4. The second appeal is admitted vide order dtd. 16/02/2018, on following substantial question of law : "The plaintiff having proved the agreement of sale as well as his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the agreement, whether the Courts were legally justified in refusing the decree for specific performance in the light of provisions of Sec. 89 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1958 and Sec. 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947?"

5. The plaintiff case is as under : The defendant No.1 was owner of agricultural land No. 85/1, area 0.92 HR situated at Mouza Mahurzari, Tq. And District Nagpur. He agreed to sell the same to the plaintiff for consideration of Rs.2, 30, 000.00 accepted earnest amount Rs.1, 00, 000.00 and executed two agreements to sell on 27/02/2004 and 05/01/2005. Plaintiff was ready and willing to perform the part of contract. He was ready to pay remaining consideration amount and get the sale deed executed. He issued notices to defendant No.1 but all in vain therefore plaintiff constrain to file the suit for specific performance of contract and in the alternative for refund of earnest amount with interest.

6. Defendant No. 1 appeared and filed his written statement at Exh.14. He has admitted acceptance of Rs.1, 00, 000.00 from the plaintiff. He submitted that he was in dire need of money therefore he took hand loan from the plaintiff. The agreement to sell was executed for the surety of repayment of hand loan. The agreement to sell was restricted to his share. He was not agreed to sell the entire suit property. The suit property is ancestral joint property of defendant No.1 and his two sisters therefore he is not entitled to execute the sale deed and prayed for dismissal of the suit.

7. Defendant No. 2 to 9 also filed their written statement at Exh.33. It was their contention that the suit property is ancestral property of defendant No.1 and his two sisters. The agreement to sell was not executed with consent of defendant No.2 to 9. It is not binding on their share. The plaintiff is not agriculturist therefore he is not entitled to purchase the suit property. They prayed for dismissal of the suit.

8. After considering the matter, facts and evidence placed on record by both the parties the learned lower court held that the plaintiff had established the execution of agreement but failed to prove that the agreements are enforceable hence dismissed the suit and allowed the alternate prayer of refund of earnest amount.

9. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the order of the learned lower court plaintiff preferred appeal before the learned Ad-hoc District Judge-3, Nagpur in RCANo. 79/2016. The learned lower appellate court also held that as the property is sold by the Respondent no. 1, 2 and 9 to one Neelima Shukla on 20/09/2013 therefore decree of specific performance can not be executed in the absene of said necessary party and gave concurrent finding as that of lower court that the plaintiff is not entitled for the partial specific performance of 1/3rd share of defendant no. 1 as the suit property is the joint property of defendant no. 1, 2 and 9 and accordingly, dismissed the appeal with cost.

10. The learned counsel for the Appellant contended that the Lower Appellate Court erred in holding that as per Sec. 89 of the Maharashtra Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, the appellant is not entitled for specific performanc