http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 1 of 10

PETITIONER:

ROJASARA RAMJIBHAI DAHYABHAI

Vs.

RESPONDENT:

JANI NAROTTAMDAS LALLUBHAI (DEAD)BY LRS. & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT10/04/1986

BENCH:

SEN, A.P. (J)

BENCH:

SEN, A.P. (J)

RAY, B.C. (J)

CITATION:

1986 AIR 1912 1986 SCR (2) 447

1986 SCC (3) 300 1986 SCALE (1)566

ACT:

A. Suit for specific performance - Agreement to sell

contains an implied covenant on the part of the vendor to do

all things necessary to give effect to the Agreement,

including the obtaining of the permission for the transfer

of property - Vendor who has become the statutory occupant

and owner of the land and who has obtained necessary

permission subsequently as such occupant refuses to execute

the sale-deed on the plea that the agreement to sell entered

into by him was interdependent on his earlier Agreement to

purchase the lands from the Girasdar and contingent on his

obtaining the permission and since he failed, the Agreement

to sell is incapable of performance - Contract Act, 1872,

sections 31 & 32 - Whether the Court can order specific

performance of transfer - Specific Relief Act, 1877, section

13 - Doctrine of "feeding the estoppel", applicability.

B. Limitation Act, 1963, Article 113, applicability of

- Computation of period of time from what date, explained.

HEADNOTE:

The appellant-defendant who was the owner of two plots

of land admeasuring 491 and 1599 square yards situate in

village Dudheraj recorded as Girasdari agricultural land

entered into an agreement in writing (Ex.26), on October 19,

1949, with the Girasdar, Rana Mohabat Singh to purchase the

said lands at Rs.2.50 per square yard and paid an earnest

money of Rs.1,001. The agreement stipulated that the vendor

was to apply for permission from the Collector to convert

the agricultural land into village site for non-agricultural

use and that the sale deed was to be executed after

obtaining the requisite permission. On November 14, 1949 the

appellant entered into another agreement to sell some

property to the respondents Jani Narottamdas Lallubhai and

Thakur Dhirajlal Dhaneshvar at Rs. 3.75 per square yard

agreeing to contend that the appellant was to get the land

converted into village site at his own expense and

thereafter executed the sale-deed.

448

In 1950-51 Rana Mohabat Singh applied to the Collector

for grant of permission to convert the land into village

site but since his application was rejected he refunded the

earnest money to the appellant. However, after coming into

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Page 2 of 10

force of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951, with effect

from September 1, 1951, the right and title of Rana Mohabat

Singh as the ex-Girasdar were extinguished and the appellant

was recognised to be an occupant thereof under the

provisions of the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1898. On 13

August, 1957, the appellant made an application to the

revenue authorities for the grant of occupancy certificate,

which was granted on 6.2.58 by the Mamlatdar. The occupancy

certificate was to come into effect from August 1, 1958. On

two applications of the appellant dated June 23, 1958 and

September 10, 1959 revenue authorities granted permission

for converting the lands under his possession into village

site, that is, for non-agricultural use. On 5 October, 1959

the respondents called upon the appellant to execute a

conveyance of the property in accordance with the agreement

of sale between the parties dated 14.11.1949 and on the

appellant’s failure to comply, they filed a suit for

specific performance. The Trial Court upheld the pleas of

the appellant, namely, (i) the suit was barred by

limitation; and (ii) the agreement between the parties was a

contingent contract depending upon the contingency referred

t