9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Abandonment of the agreement. 2. Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform the agreement. 3. Validity of the agreement under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. 4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to decide the enforceability of the agreement. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Abandonment of the Agreement: The defendant contended that the plaintiff abandoned the agreement due to the realization that executing the sale deed would violate the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The Civil Judge rejected this plea, and the High Court concurred. The defendant's story was inconsistent and lacked credible evidence, particularly from Shivaji, who was allegedly the intermediary. The burden of proving abandonment was on the defendant, which was not discharged satisfactorily. 2. Readiness and Willingness of the Plaintiff to Perform the Agreement: The Civil Judge did not explicitly address whether the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the agreement. The High Court noted that the Civil Judge should have recorded a finding on this issue. The defendant's witness, D.W. 2 Devappa, claimed that the plaintiff abandoned the agreement due to the ceiling area issue, but his testimony was deemed untrustworthy and inconsistent. The High Court found no reason to doubt the plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform the agreement. 3. Validity of the Agreement under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act: The defendant argued that the agreement was void as it would result in the plaintiff holding land in excess of the ceiling area prescribed by the Act. The Civil Judge agreed, but the High Court disagreed. The High Court examined Sections 34 and 35 of the Act, which regulate the holding and acquisition of land. It found no express or implied prohibition against the agreement of sale. The High Court emphasized that the agreement's performance would not necessarily result in an illegal acquisition, as several legal avenues could prevent exceeding the ceiling area, such as partial performance or assignment of the decree to a third party. Thus, the agreement was not void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. 4. Jurisdiction of the Civil Court to Decide the Enforceability of the Agreement: The defendant contended that only the Mamlatdar had jurisdiction to decide the validity of the transfer or acquisition under Sections 70(mb) and 85 of the Act. The High Court rejected this argument, stating that the Mamlatdar's jurisdiction arises only after an actual transfer or acquisition. Since the acquisition had not yet occurred, the Civil Court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate the enforceability of the agreement. Conclusion: The High Court allowed the appeal, reversing the Civil Judge's decree. It directed the plaintiff to deposit Rs. 30,000 in the lower court within one month. Upon deposit, the defendant was to execute a sale deed for the suit properties. If the defendant failed to do so, the court would execute the deed. The decree for specific performance was made, but the plaintiff was not entitled to mesne profits until the entire consideration was deposited. The jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar under Section 84C or Section 70(mb) remained unaffected by the High Court's decree.
|
