Case Note & Summary
The civil revision petition arose from an order of the trial court rejecting the petitioners' application to reject the plaint in a suit for specific performance. The petitioners were granted land on 06-09-2000 with a condition prohibiting alienation for 15 years. On 16-06-2014, within the non-alienation period, they executed a sale agreement and registered power of attorney in favor of the respondent/plaintiff for a total consideration of Rs. 27,50,000, receiving Rs. 20,00,000 as security deposit. The land was not developed as allegedly promised, and the petitioners cancelled the power of attorney on 06-10-2023. The respondent filed a suit for specific performance on 21-10-2023. The petitioners, as defendants, filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(a) and (d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred by law since the agreement was void under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978. They argued that Section 4(1) renders any transfer in contravention of grant conditions null and void, and Section 3(1)(e) defines transfer to include an agreement to sell. Thus, the agreement executed during the non-alienation period was void ab initio, and no permission had been obtained from the government. The respondent contended that the non-alienation clause applies only to actual sale deed execution and that no sale deed had been executed, so there was no violation. The trial court rejected the application, leading to the present revision petition. The High Court heard arguments and reserved its judgment.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order VII Rule 11(a)(d) CPC - Application seeking rejection of plaint on ground that suit for specific performance of sale agreement is barred by law - Agreement executed during non-alienation period for granted land under Karnataka SC/ST Act - Petitioners contend agreement void ab initio under Section 4(1) read with Section 3(1)(e); respondent contends sale not executed thus no violation - Court to consider whether plaint should be rejected. (Paras 1-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the plaint for specific performance of an agreement of sale of granted land executed during the non-alienation period is barred by law under the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978.
Law Points
- Transfer includes agreement to sell under Section 3(1)(e) of Karnataka SC/ST Act
- Plaint can be rejected if barred by law under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC
- Void ab initio transactions cannot be specifically enforced
Case Details
2026 LawText (KAR) (01) 26
Civil Revision Petition No. 446 of 2025
Bipin Hegde (for petitioners), Bhaskar Babu H.J. (for respondent No.1)
Sri Anjinappa, Smt. Doddagangamma @ Gangamma, Smt. Manjula, Smt. Mamatha, Smt. Pushpa, Sri Venugopal
Sri Maregowda and M/s One Wolf Ventures Pvt. Ltd.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Petition against order rejecting application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC in a suit for specific performance.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners (defendants) seek setting aside of the trial court's order and rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Filing Reason
The trial court rejected the petitioners' application for rejection of the plaint, which was filed on the ground that the suit for specific performance was based on an agreement of sale that is void under Karnataka SC/ST Act.
Previous Decisions
The I Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura, by order dated 16.04.2025 in I.A.No.12 in O.S.No.578/2023 rejected the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
Issues
Whether the agreement of sale executed during the non-alienation period is void under Section 4(1) read with Section 3(1)(e) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978?
Whether the plaint for specific performance of such agreement is barred by law and liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC?
Whether the trial court erred in not rejecting the plaint when the agreement is void ab initio?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners: The agreement is void ab initio as it contravenes non-alienation condition and Section 4(1); transfer includes agreement to sell under Section 3(1)(e); no prior permission obtained; suit not maintainable.
Respondent: The non-alienation clause applies only to actual sale deed execution; no sale deed executed yet; thus no violation; agreement is not void.
Judgment Excerpts
the property should not be alienated for a period of 15 years from the date of grant.
the petitioners purportedly execute a sale agreement and a registered power of attorney in favour of the 1st respondent/plaintiff
Section 4(1) of the Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 ... stipulates that transfer of granted land made in contravention of the terms of the grant is null and void
Section 3(1)(e) includes a sale agreement within the definition of transfer under the Act.
Procedural History
06-09-2000: Grant of land with 15-year non-alienation condition. 16-06-2014: Petitioners execute sale agreement and power of attorney in favor of respondent. 06-10-2023: Petitioners cancel power of attorney. 21-10-2023: Respondent files suit for specific performance. Petitioners file I.A.No.12 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC. 16-04-2025: Trial court rejects application. Petitioners file Civil Revision Petition No.446/2025. 25-10-2025: Heard and reserved for orders. 22-01-2026: Order pronounced.
Acts & Sections
- Karnataka Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978: 3(1)(e), 4(1), 4(2)
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 115, Order VII Rule 11(a), Order VII Rule 11(d)
