Specific performance can be granted despite preliminary legal requirements if conditions do not amount to an absolute prohibition under applicable law.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 11.09.2015 passed in Civil Suit No.04 - A / 2014 by District Judge, Dhamtari whereby, the appellants suit for grant of decree of specific performance has been dismissed.

2. Appellants / plaintiff filed a suit seeking decree of specific performance of contract on the pleadings that the defendant No.1 had entered into an agreement to sell the disputed property on 28.06.2013 (Ex.P / 3) for a consideration of Rs.78,00,000/- (Rs. Seventy - Eight Lac only), out of which Rs.21,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty - one lac only) were paid in advance. Later on, another agreement dated 28.12.2013 (Ex.P / 4) was executed, under which, the period within which the balance amount was to be paid, was extended and the plaintiffs paid a further amount of Rs.6,00,000/- (Rs. Six Lac only). Thus, total amount of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty - Seven Lac only) were paid by the plaintiff to the defendant No.1 from time - to - time at the time of execution of two agreements. Under the agreement, there were specific conditions requiring the defendant to obtain permission from the competent authority for sale of land and also to get the property released from encumbrance created by way of mortgage against loan taken from the bank. Though, the plaintiff had paid substantial amount of Rs.27,00,000/- (Rs. Twenty Seven Lac only) and was always ready and willing to perform the part of contract, the defendant failed to perform his part of contract and despite specific notice given by the plaintiff, failed to execute sale deed in favour of the plaintiff. Therefore, the decree of specific performance of contract to be granted in favour of the plaintiff.

3. The defendant No.1, owner of the property, however, denied the very existence of the agreements and disputed the claim of the plaintiff. Upon disclosure of the details of loan, the plaintiff sought impleadment of the concerned bank also as one of the defendant and housing finance limited was impleaded as one of the defendant in the suit. The learned trial Court framed as many as three issues, which were as under : -
(Editors Note: Vernacular Matter Omitted)

4. Even though, the learned trial Court found that the parties had entered into an agreement of sale under two agreements dated 28.06.2013 and 28.12.2013, that the plaintiff had paid Rs.27,00,000/- to the defendant and even though the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract, dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff could not be granted decree because the sale of property required permission of Collector as the proposed vendor / defendant No.1 was Scheduled Tribe and under the existing laws, sale could not be effected without prior permission. The learned trial Court recorded a finding in favour of the appellants that the defendants failed to prove that the property was duly mortgaged with the bank against the loan taken by defendant No.1 from the concerned bank. It is this decree, which is under challenge in this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the learned trial Court having clearly held that the parties have entered into an agreement of sale of disputed property and that plaintiff had paid a very heavy amount of Rs.27,00,000/- and was always ready and willing to perform his part of contract, ought not to have dismissed the claim of the plaintiff only on the ground that the sale requiring prior permission of Collector, decree for specific performance of contract could not be granted. His argument is that even if such