An agreement for sale under FERA does not constitute a transfer of property, thus not requiring prior RBI permission for enforcement, allowing the civil suit to proceed.

JUDGMENT :

Sugato Majumdar, J.:

CS 576 of 1990 is taken up for passing judgment on a preliminary point as to whether the suit is barred by Section 31 of the FERA, 1973.

2. During pendency of the suit, an application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure by the Defendant, praying for rejection of the plaint. A Co-ordinate Bench, in terms of the Order dated 4^th May, 2021 rejected the application itself. An appeal was preferred against the said order. The Division Bench in APOT 159 of 2021 in terms of Order dated 17^th November, 2021 directed that the issue of maintainability of the suit shall be decided as a preliminary point. Accordingly, the suit is taken up for passing the judgment on preliminary issue. On 4^th January, 2023, Co-Ordinate Bench framed preliminary issue and proceeded with witness action. Thereafter, the suit was taken up for hearing argument on preliminary issue,

3. The sum and substance of the plaint case is that the original Plaintiff being the deceased father of the Plaintiff nos. 1 to 3 instituted the instant suit against the original Defendant, praying for decree of specific performance of the agreement for sale dated 22^nd January, 1989 in respect of premises no. 6, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkata-700016 along with other prayers. The prayers made in the plaint are decree for specific performance of the agreement; decree directing the Defendants their servants, agents and representatives and assigns to execute and register in due form of law in favour of the substituted Plaintiffs of their nominee or nominees, deed or deeds of conveyance in respect of the premises no. 6, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkata- 700016, in default, deed of conveyance may be executed by the Learned Registrar, Original Side of this Court; decree for Rs.5,00,000/-; in case, decree for specific performance of the agreement dated 2^nd January, 1989 is granted, a decree for a sum of Rs.6,35,000/-, along with other prayers.

4. Originally Mrs. Helen Wilson was absolute owner seized and possessed of and/or otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to all the six storied brick built building along with annexures outhouses and others, located at 6, Chowringhee Lane, Kolkata-700016 which is the suit premises. The said Mrs. Helen Wilson executed an agreement for sale on 2^nd January, 1989 with one Ratan Marothia being the original Plaintiff for sale of the suit premises. The original Plaintiff, since deceased, paid to the original Defendant Mrs. Helen Wilson, since deceased a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as an earnest money. The said Mrs. Helen Wilson was a foreigner. Subsequently in terms of a letter dated 14th February, 1990 the original Defendant intimated the original Plaintiff that she was not interested to sell the premises and cancelled the agreement. This is the genesis of the instant suit.

5. The original Defendant contested the suit by filing written statement. On death of the original Defendant substitutions were made. Written statement was also amended as the plaint was amended. The contention of the entire written statement need not be taken into consideration at this stage. Since, the present adjudication is confined to preliminary issue of maintainability of the suit, it is enough to notice that in Para 14 (c) of the written stateme