A civil court must reject a plaint under the relevant procedural rules if the underlying agreement for specific performance concerns land transfers prohibited by statute, as an invalid contract fails to establish a sustainable cause of action.

JUDGMENT :

L. S. PIRZADA, J.

1. Heard learned advocate Mr.Tatvam Patel appearing for learned advocate Mr.Nisarg P. Raval for the appellant – original plaintiff and learned Senior Counsel Mr.Mehul S. Shah appearing with learned advocate Mr.Mrugesh A. Barot for the respondent No.3.

2. The present appeal is preferred by the appellant – original plaintiff under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, the “Code”) against the impugned Judgment and Decree dated 15.06.2024 passed by the learned 3rd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ahmedabad (Rural) in Special Civil Suit No.238 of 2020 below Exhs.20 and 36 and Final Order below Exh.1, allowing both the applications preferred by the original defendant No.3 under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code.

3. Factual matrix of the case are that the present appellant – original plaintiff had preferred Special Civil Suit No.238 of 2020 against the present respondents – original defendants for specific performance of an agreement to sale dated 07.10.2013 executed in favour of the original plaintiff by the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 and further seeking declaration that the registered sale deed dated 04.02.2020 executed by the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 qua the suit land in favour of the defendant No.3 is illegal, ab-initio and not binding upon the appellant – original plaintiff and also seeking permanent injunction.

3.1. It is the case of the original plaintiff that the land, situated at Ahmedabad City West Taluka (At present Sabarmati), Mauje: Ranip bearing Survey No.153 admeasuring 16592 sq.mtrs. of Town Planning Scheme No.66 bearing F.P. No.119 Paiki, 9955 sq.mtrs., which has been given Final Plot and has been termed as a suit land before the learned trial Court, was as per the provisions of Section 62 of the Gujarat Land Revenue Code, 1879 (for short, the “Land Revenue Code”), given to the forefather of the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 as a new tenure land. Thereafter, the defendant Nos.1 and 2 had executed the registered agreement to sale of the said suit land with the plaintiff on 07.10.2013 and sale consideration was fixed at Rs.8,44,20,096/- and at the time of executing the agreement to sale, the original plaintiff had also paid an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- to the defendant Nos.1 and 2 and the said agreement to sale was executed with certain conditions. As per the said conditions, time was fixed for 12 months for obtaining the title clearance certificate and to convert the said land from new tenure land to old tenure land and that, after obtaining the title clearance certificate and after conversion of the suit land to old tenure land, sale deed was to be executed within 12 months.

3.2. It is further the case of the appellant that, before executing the agreement to sale, Special Civil Suit No.458 of 2011 was pending against the original defendant Nos.1 and 2 and they were defending the said suit as per the instructions of the original plaintiff. The defendants have also filed Special Civil Suit No.463 of 2012 against Rameshchandra Vaghela and others and they were also pursuing the said suit as per the instructions of the plaintiff. At the time of agreement to sale, an amount of Rs.25,00,000/- has been given and subsequently, the original plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of contract and after Covid-19 pandemic, the defendants have not contacted the plaintiff and the plaintiff had made an inquiry and found that on 28.01.2020, a premium of Rs.4,97,75,000/- was fixed