Agreements for the sale of assigned land are void under statutory prohibitions, affecting the enforceability of rights under the Transfer of Property Act.

JUDGMENT

The appellant is the respondent in A.S.No.62/2018 on the file of the Additional District Court, N.Paravur (hererinafter referred to as 'the first appellate court') and the plaintiff in O.S.No.437/2013 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Aluva (hereinafter referred to as 'the trial court'). The respondents 1 to 7 are the appellants in the A.S. and the defendants in the O.S. The parties are hereinafter referred to as 'the plaintiff' and 'the defendant' according to their status in the trial court unless otherwise stated.

2. The suit was filed for permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property, forcefully evicting the plaintiff from the property, from creating new documents with respect to the property and also from doing anything detrimental to the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the same by the plaintiff.

3. One C.L.Mathachan, the predecessor-in-interest of the defendants got patta in respect of 2.47 acres of land as per P.F.No.192/1981. 62.682 cents of this property was lying on the southern side of Edamalayar- Illithodu road. The property lying on the southern side of the said 62.682 cents is belonging to the plaintiff and one Susan P.Aliyattukudy. C.L.Mathachan, along with the 1st defendant, who is his wife, entered into an agreement on 22.6.1984 to sell out the said property to the said persons. Since there was a bar against the sale of the property for a period of 12 years from the date of issuance of patta, no time was specifically fixed and it was tentatively agreed to execute the sale deed after 10 years. The plaintiff agreed to purchase 28.672 cents out of the said property and the rest by Susan.P.Aliyattukudy. The said 28.672 cents is the plaint schedule property. The possession of the property was handed over to the purported purchasers then and there. The entire sale consideration was paid in simultaneous with the said agreement. The plaintiff and the other purchaser put up compound walls on the north, west and the east of their properties. The plaintiff installed a gate in the plaint schedule property and a way was also provided to her southern property. She made much improvement in the property and trees were also planted. All this while, the plaintiff had been in exclusive possession and enjoyment of the said property. Simultaneously with the execution of the said agreement, power of attorney dated 22.6.1984 was also executed by the assignors in favour of A.K.Poulose, father of Susan.P.Aliyattukudy to do everything including the sale of property to the said purchasers in respect of the said properties. In 1993 A.K.Poulose expired. Later, C.L.Mathachan, whose legal representatives are respondent Nos.4 to 7, also passed away. In the meanwhile, the respondents expressed their willingness to execute the purported sale deed but they demanded more amount although the entire amount was already paid to them earlier. In the above circumstances, they became a nuisance which led to the complaint before the police and ultimately resulted in filing the above suit.

4. The defendants filed written statement contending that the agreement for sale is illegal. It is further contended that the validity of the agreement ceased to exist after the expiry of the agreement. Even if a way is there to the southern property of the plaintiff through the plaint schedule property, the same has come into existence only on license. They claimed that the improvements were effected by them. According to them, instead of filing a suit for specific performance of contract, the appellant had filed a suit for injunction simplicitor to protect her alleged possession.

5. After framing requisite issues, PWs.1 to 3 were examined and marked Exts.A1 to A5 on the side of the plaintiff. DWs.1 to 5 were examined and marked Exts.B1 to B5 series on the side of the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit. The defendants carried the matter in appeal. The first appellate court allowed