An agreement of sale for granted land under the PTCL Act without prior government permission is void and unenforceable, rendering a suit for specific performance maintainable and the plaint liable for rejection under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the CPC.

THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2022 PASSED ON I.A.XIX IN OS.NO.1252/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, C/C IIND ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI REJECTING THE I.A.XIX FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (d) OF CPC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON 27.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS

CAV ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure at the hands of defendants No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1252/2006 on the file of the learned III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Devanahalli, being aggrieved of the rejection of their interlocutory application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed the suit seeking the following reliefs:

a) Direct the Defendant No.1, 3 and 4 herein to jointly execute the sale deed transferring the suit 'schedule property by way of conveyance in the name of the plaintiff by receiving the agreed balance sale consideration amount and on their failure to comply, though agency of this Hon'ble Court.

b) To declare that the sale deed executed by the defendants No.3 and 4 in favor of the first defendant on 27.5.2004 under the Document No. 439/2004-05 in respect of the suit schedule property does not bind the plaintiff in respect of the suit schedule property or any portion thereof.

c) Declare that the sale deed dated 11.11.2005, registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Devanahalli as Document No. DNH-1-03935- 2005-06, Book-1, stored in CD No. DNHD67 executed by the third and fourth defendants in favour of the fifth defendant is not binding on me.

Or in the alternative,

Direct the fifth defendant and/or any person/s claiming under or through him to join for the execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff to assure better title to the plaintiff with respect to suit Schedule Property.

b2) Order for the deletion of the encumbrances created by Defendants 1-5 over the suit Schedule Properties contrary to the rights of the plaintiff.

c) By way of permanent injunction restrain the defendants, their servants, agents or any person claiming through or under them either individually or collectively from causing any interference in the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit schedule property.

d) To grant such other relief or other relief that this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case including the cost of these proceedings in the interest of justice and equity.

4. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement contending that the agreement of sale dated 07.11.1997 entered into between the plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 is an invalid document, inasmuch as the agreement would amount to ‘transfer’ as defined in the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as ‘PTCL Act’ for short) and even an agreement of sale would amount to tran