Case Note & Summary
The case involves a Civil Revision Application filed by the original defendants (Dilipbhai Parshottambhai Patel and others) against an order of the learned Principal Senior Judge, Padra, Vadodara, dated 30.04.2024, which rejected their application under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking rejection of the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No. 51 of 2019. The plaintiffs had filed the suit seeking declaration, permanent injunction, and specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 30.09.2004 executed by the defendants in respect of land bearing Survey No. 1000, admeasuring 5,422 sq. mtrs., out of which 1,662 sq. mtrs. was agreed to be sold. The defendants contended that the land was new tenure land and the agreement to sell was prohibited under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (Tenancy Act), rendering the suit not maintainable. The Trial Court rejected the application, holding that the agreement was a registered document and prima facie proved acceptance of consideration, thus the defendant could not turn away. The High Court, after hearing arguments, found that the Trial Court had erred. The High Court noted that the plaint itself disclosed that the land was new tenure land and that the agreement to sell was executed without prior permission of the Collector, making it void ab initio under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act. The court held that a suit for specific performance of a void agreement is not maintainable and the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC as barred by law. The court emphasized that registration of the agreement does not cure the illegality. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision application, set aside the Trial Court's order, and rejected the plaint. The civil application for stay also stood disposed of.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11 CPC - Suit for Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell New Tenure Land - Plaint based on void agreement is liable to be rejected as it does not disclose any cause of action - The court must examine the plaint allegations and the law to determine if the suit is barred - Held that the Trial Court erred in not rejecting the plaint when the agreement was clearly void under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (Paras 5-10).
B) Tenancy Law - New Tenure Land - Section 43 of Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 - Transfer of new tenure land without permission of Collector is void - Agreement to sell such land is also void ab initio and cannot be enforced - Registration of the agreement does not validate the transaction - Held that the bar under Section 43 is absolute and any suit based on such agreement is not maintainable (Paras 5-10).
C) Civil Procedure - Rejection of Plaint - Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC - Suit Barred by Law - When the plaint on its face shows that the suit is barred by any law, the court must reject it - The Trial Court's view that the agreement being registered creates a prima facie case is erroneous - Held that the plaint must be rejected as the suit is barred by Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948 (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell new tenure land is maintainable in view of the bar under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948, and whether the plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the Civil Revision Application, set aside the order of the Trial Court dated 30.04.2024, and rejected the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No. 51 of 2019. The Civil Application for stay also stood disposed of.
Law Points
- Agreement to sell new tenure land is void ab initio under Section 43 of Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act
- 1948
- Plaint disclosing cause of action based on void agreement is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC
- Registration of agreement does not cure illegality under Tenancy Act
- Bar under Section 43 is absolute and cannot be circumvented by claiming part performance or estoppel
Case Details
R/Civil Revision Application No. 449 of 2024 with Civil Application (For Stay) No. 1 of 2024
Mr. Hardik S Soni for the Applicants, A R Kadri and Vasimraja A Kureshi for the Opponents
Dilipbhai Parshottambhai Patel & Ors.
The Gujarat Agricultural Produce Market Pardra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil Revision Application against order rejecting application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC for rejection of plaint in a suit for specific performance.
Remedy Sought
The defendants (applicants) sought rejection of the plaint in Regular Civil Suit No. 51 of 2019 on the ground that the suit was barred by Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948.
Filing Reason
The plaintiffs filed the suit for specific performance of an Agreement to Sell dated 30.09.2004 in respect of new tenure land, which is prohibited under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court (Principal Senior Judge, Padra, Vadodara) rejected the defendants' application under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC by order dated 30.04.2024.
Issues
Whether the plaint in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell new tenure land is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC as barred by Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948.
Whether the Trial Court erred in not rejecting the plaint on the ground that the agreement was registered and consideration was paid.
Submissions/Arguments
The defendants argued that the land was new tenure land and the agreement to sell was void under Section 43 of the Tenancy Act, thus the suit was not maintainable and the plaint should be rejected.
The plaintiffs contended that the agreement was registered and consideration was paid, creating a prima facie case, and the issue of tenancy could be decided at trial.
Ratio Decidendi
An agreement to sell new tenure land without prior permission of the Collector is void ab initio under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948. A suit for specific performance of such a void agreement does not disclose any cause of action and is barred by law, making the plaint liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC. Registration of the agreement or payment of consideration does not cure the illegality.
Judgment Excerpts
Plea to reject plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in Regular Civil Suit No.51 of 2019 since warn off by learned Principal Senior Judge, Padra, Vadodara, the original defendant has preferred this Revision Application under section 115 of the CPC.
The plaintiff filed Regular Civil Suit No. 51 of 2019 seeking relief of declaration, permanent injunction, and specific performance based on an Agreement to Sell dated 30.09.2004 executed by the defendants in respect of land bearing Survey No. 1000...
defendants came out with application at Exh.23 under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC to reject plaint on the ground that Banakath / agreement to sell dated 30.09.2004 is in regards to new tenure land and same is prohibited under section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948...
Learned Trial Court did not accept plea for rejection of plaint mainly on the ground that agreement to sell is registered document, which it prima facie proves that defendant has accepted Rs.22,89,536/- through cheque and thus defendant having executed agreement to sale cannot turn away.
The plaint itself reveals that the land is new tenure land and the agreement to sell is without permission of the Collector. Therefore, the agreement is void ab initio and the suit for specific performance is not maintainable.
The Trial Court has committed a serious error in not rejecting the plaint. The plaint is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11(d) CPC as the suit is barred by law.
Procedural History
The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No. 51 of 2019 before the Principal Senior Judge, Padra, Vadodara. The defendants filed an application at Exh.23 under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. The Trial Court rejected the application by order dated 30.04.2024. The defendants then filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC before the High Court of Gujarat, which was allowed on 03.03.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 7 Rule 11, Section 115
- Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Land Act, 1948: Section 43
