Case Note & Summary
The case involves two second appeals arising from a common judgment of the appellate court dated 07.01.2005. The suit property, field Gat No.127 admeasuring 1 Hectare 45 R with half share in a well, was owned by Khandu (defendant no.1). In February 1987, Khandu agreed to sell the field to the plaintiff, Leela, for Rs.25,000. On 19.02.1987, Rs.24,000 was paid, a document was executed, and possession was given. The sale deed was to be executed by 01.12.1987. Since the suit field fell within the Koradi Project, permission from the Competent Authority under Section 5 of the Koradi Project Act was required. On 02.04.1988, the balance of Rs.1,000 was paid and a fresh document executed. The defendant did not obtain permission. The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance. The trial court decreed the suit. The appellate court reversed the decree, holding that the agreement was void for want of permission and that the plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the validity of the agreement and the finding on readiness and willingness. The High Court held that the agreement is not void ab initio; the obligation to obtain permission is on the vendor. The appellate court's finding on readiness and willingness was perverse as the plaintiff had paid the entire consideration and filed suit promptly. The High Court allowed the appeals, set aside the appellate judgment, and restored the trial court's decree for specific performance.
Headnote
A) Specific Performance - Agreement to Sell - Validity - Koradi Project Act, 1975, Section 5 - The agreement to sell is not void merely because permission under Section 5 of the Koradi Project Act was not obtained at the time of execution; the obligation to obtain permission is on the vendor, and the agreement remains enforceable subject to such permission being obtained. (Paras 10-12) B) Specific Performance - Readiness and Willingness - Plaintiff's Conduct - The plaintiff's payment of substantial consideration and filing of suit for specific performance within a reasonable time indicates readiness and willingness; the appellate court's finding that plaintiff failed to prove readiness and willingness was perverse and not based on evidence. (Paras 13-15) C) Civil Procedure - Second Appeal - Substantial Question of Law - The appellate court's findings on readiness and willingness being perverse and the interpretation of Section 5 of the Koradi Project Act raise substantial questions of law warranting interference under Section 100 CPC. (Paras 16-18)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the agreement to sell dated 19.02.1987 and 02.04.1988 is void for want of permission under Section 5 of the Koradi Project Act, and whether the plaintiff has proved readiness and willingness to perform her part of the contract.
Final Decision
Both second appeals are allowed. The common judgment of the appellate court dated 07.01.2005 is set aside. The judgment and decree of the trial court dated 30.04.2003 in Regular Civil Suit No. 408/1990 are restored. The suit for specific performance is decreed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Specific performance
- Agreement to sell
- Readiness and willingness
- Koradi Project Act
- Section 5
- Permission for transfer
- Void agreement
- Substantial question of law
