Specific performance cannot be granted conditionally.

S.S. Subramani, J.

1. This case had been placed before Full Bench pursuant to reference order dated 12. 1997.

2. Respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of contract as C.S.No.130 of 1981 and a learned Judge of this court passed decree directing appellants to execute sale deed as per decree dated 13. 1991.

3. Aggrieved by the judgment, defendants preferred the appeal and one of the questions that was raised before Division Bench was that whether the agreement is enforceable ? The contention was that since defendants are holding more than the ceiling limits under Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1978. Whether an agreement executed by them, could be enforced and will it not contravene the provisions of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulations) Act, 1978 ?.

4. In Mariamma Varghese v.K.V.Balasubramaniam & 11 others, 1994 (1) L.W.391 the Division Bench held thus,

"Apart from the finding of the court below which non-suited the plaintiff mainly on the ground that the agreement of sale was cancelled by the original agreement holders, there is another impediment, legal in nature, which comes in the way of enforcing the agreement of sale. The impediment is that the transaction, assuming it could fructify through the hands of the court, will come within the mischief of Section 6 of Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation ) Act 24 of 1978. That provision inhibits the coming into existence of any such transaction will be null and void. The court is not supposed to lend its land for the purpose of arriving at this result, assuming that the plaintiff has got a case on merits otherwise. The result is a decree for specific performance cannot be obtained at the hands of the court, which will be practically nullifying the statutory provisions, found in section 6 of the Act."

The same principle was reiterated in the decision reported in Prabhavathi Jain & 4 others v. The Government of Tamil Nadu Etc. & 8 others, 1995 (2) L.W. 200.

5. Again, the same principle was reiterated in the decision reported in Government of India v. Jagadish A. Sadaranani, 1996 (221) ITR 338. In that decision, their Lordships considered the scope of Section 6 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act and its effect on agreement of sale, which reads thus:

We shall now consider the scope and effect of section 6 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. This section has been interpreted by this Court in more than one decision. In Mariamma Varghese v. K.V.Balasubramaniam, 1994 (1) L.W 391 the appeal was filed before this Court against the decree dismissing a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale. The Division Bench interpreted section 6 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act in the following terms (Page 392):

"The impediment is that the transaction, assuming it could fructify through the hands of the court, will come within the mischief of section 6 of the Tamil Nadu Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act (24 of 1978) (hereinafter referred to as "the act"). That provision inhibits the coming into existence of any such transaction as the present one and further says that such transaction will be null and void. The court is not supposed to lend its hands for the purpose of arriving at this result, assuming that the plaintiff has got a case on merits otherwise."

A similar view was taken in Samiappan (B.P) v. Arunthavaselvan , 199 4 (1) L.W.399. That decision related to the bar on the sale contained in section 23 of the Tamil Nadu Reforms (Fixation of Ceiling on Land) Act, 1961, which provision is also in pari materia with section 6 of the Urban Land Ceiling Act. The Division Bench held thus (Page 402):

"The plaintiff seeks to have the agreement enforced by court of law and get a sale deed in pursuance thereof. If the court grants a decree in favour of the plaintiff, either by the party or by the court, that sale is automatically void and it is deemed to be void always as per the provisions of the Act. The court cannot be a par