Case Note & Summary
The appellant-defendant, Hetram, entered into an agreement for sale of his agricultural land with the respondents-plaintiffs on 11 August 2003 for a total consideration of Rs. 2,31,000. The plaintiffs paid earnest money of Rs. 21,000 and later the entire balance consideration on the defendant's undertaking to refund any excess if the land area was found less. The defendant failed to execute the sale deed despite the plaintiffs being ready and willing, including purchasing stamp papers and waiting at the Sub-Registrar's office on the agreed date of 25 November 2003. The plaintiffs filed a suit for specific performance. The defendant denied the agreement and contended that the plaintiffs were not agriculturists, making the agreement void under Section 89 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, and that the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction. The trial court decreed the suit, holding the agreement valid and the plaintiffs ready and willing. The first appellate court dismissed the appeal. In the second appeal, the High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the enforceability of the agreement in light of Section 89 and the Civil Court's jurisdiction. The High Court held that Section 89 prohibits transfer of agricultural land to a non-agriculturist, but an agreement for sale is not a transfer; it is a contract to transfer in future. The bar applies only to the execution of the sale deed, not to the enforcement of the agreement. The court also held that the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide whether a plaintiff is an agriculturist. On facts, the courts below had found the plaintiffs to be agriculturists based on evidence. The High Court found no perversity in the concurrent findings and dismissed the second appeal, upholding the decree for specific performance.
Headnote
A) Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Section 16(c) - Readiness and Willingness - Agreement for Sale - Plaintiff must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract - In the present case, plaintiffs paid entire consideration and were present at the Sub-Registrar's office on the fixed date, demonstrating readiness and willingness - Held that the trial court and first appellate court correctly found the plaintiffs ready and willing (Paras 5-6). B) Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958 - Section 89 - Bar on Transfer to Non-Agriculturist - Agreement for Sale - Section 89 prohibits transfer of agricultural land to a non-agriculturist, but an agreement for sale is not a transfer; it is a contract to transfer in future - The bar applies only to the execution of the sale deed, not to the enforcement of the agreement - Held that the agreement for sale is enforceable, and the purchaser must obtain permission before the sale deed is executed (Paras 7-8). C) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Section 9 - Jurisdiction of Civil Court - Issue of Agriculturist Status - The Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide whether a plaintiff is an agriculturist for the purpose of Section 89 of the Bombay Tenancy Act - The trial court and first appellate court correctly held that the plaintiffs are agriculturists based on evidence - Held that the Civil Court's jurisdiction is not ousted (Paras 9-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether an agreement for sale of agricultural land is enforceable in law when the purchaser is not an agriculturist, in view of the bar under Section 89 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act, 1958, and whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide the issue of the plaintiff being an agriculturist.
Final Decision
Second appeal dismissed. The judgment and order of the Principal District Judge, Gondia dated 22.11.2012 in Regular Civil Appeal No. 48 of 2012 is confirmed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Section 89 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands (Vidarbha Region) Act
- 1958 does not bar enforcement of an agreement for sale of agricultural land merely because the purchaser is not an agriculturist
- the bar applies only to transfers by sale
- not to agreements for sale
- Civil Court has jurisdiction to decide whether a plaintiff is an agriculturist for the purpose of Section 89
- Specific performance of agreement for sale can be granted even if purchaser is not an agriculturist
- subject to obtaining necessary permission before execution of sale deed.
