The statute prohibits the transfer of certain lands without government approval, making agreements to sell such lands unenforceable.

ORAL JUDGMENT

This appeal is filed against a divergent finding in a suit for specific performance of contract. The plaintiff is before this Court challenging the judgment and decree passed by First Appellate Court, which reversed the judgment and decree for specific performance granted by the Trial Court.

2. The suit for specific performance is filed to enforce the agreement for Sale dated 28.12.1992. The plaintiff claims that defendant agreed to sell the suit property for Rs.7,500/- and plaintiff claims to have paid the full sale consideration amount of Rs.7,500/- on the date of agreement itself.

3. The property covered under the agreement is Sy.No.78 of Borasandra Village, Sira Taluk measuring 5 acres (excluding 0.10 guntas kharab).

4. The defendant filed written statement and denied the execution of the agreement for sale. The defendant also denied that he has received Rs.7,500/- towards sale consideration amount and also denied the delivery of possession as claimed by the plaintiff.

5. The defendant also took a contention that the suit is barred by limitation as the time was fixed for the enforcement of agreement was only 3 years. The trail Court came to the conclusion that agreement is proved and the trial Court also held that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract.

6. As far as the contention relating to limitation, the trial Court held that the suit is in time on the premise that the suit is filed within 3 years from the date fixed in the agreement and accordingly, the trial Court granted a decree for specific performance of the contract. The trial Court has also held that under the agreement for sale, there was no time fixed for performance of the contract as such, the suit is in time.

7. First Appellate Court, on an appeal filed by the defendant has reversed the finding holding that the agreement is barred under the provisions of Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act , 1978 (for short 'Act of

1978').

8. The records would reveal that the property in question was granted to father of the defendant and it is an admitted fact that the defendant belongs to Scheduled Caste. There was no permission granted by the Competent Authority to sell the suit schedule property. First Appellate Court has relied on the judgment of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of SRI.VENKATANARAYANAPPA VS SRI. SIDDAPPA , [2007(3) KCCR 1577], to conclude that the agreement is hit by the provisions of the Act of 1978. By referring to the said judgment, First Appellate Court has come to the conclusion that the agreement to sell without the previous permission of the Government is impermissible and accordingly, held that agreement is unenforceable.

9. Since the plaintiff claims to have taken possession of the property under the agreement to sell, the transfer is not permissible and the agreement is hit under the provisions of the Act of 1978.

10. It is also relevant to notice that, there is a delay of 1769 days in filing the appeal. As already noticed that the suit is one for specific performance of the contract, the suit was initially decreed, the appeal was allowed and the suit was later dismissed declining the relief of specific performance however, the decree is passed for refund of the consideration amount. The delay of 1769 days in filing the appeal also comes in the way of accepting the plaintiff's claim relating to the readiness and willingness to perform the contract.

11. This Court does not find any reasons to interfere with the finding of First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law would arise and accordingly, the