http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 6  

PETITIONER: JAMBU RAO SATAPPA KOCHERI

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: NEMINATH APPAYYA HANAMMANNAVER

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/04/1968

BENCH: SHAH, J.C. BENCH: SHAH, J.C. RAMASWAMI, V.

CITATION:  1968 AIR 1358            1968 SCR  (3) 706  CITATOR INFO :  R          1979 SC 653  (16)  R          1985 SC 962  (5)  R          1989 SC2240  (12)

ACT: Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948-ss. 34, 35,  70(mb),  84C  &  85-Agreement to  sell  land  which  if performed would lead to purchased holding land, in excess of ceiling  prescribed-if enforceable by a decree for  specific performance.-Whether  jurisdiction of civil court  to  award decree excluded by ss. 70(mb) or 84C.

HEADNOTE: The  appellant agreed to sell to the respondent 41 acres  of jirayat land in Mysore, but failed to execute a  conveyance. The  respondent  filed  a suit for  a  decree  for  specific performance  of  the agreement and possession of  the  land. The  trial court dismissed the suit holding that the  agree- ment,  if  enforced, would result in "transgression  of  the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands  Act 67 of 1948".  In appeal, the High Court of Mysore granted  a decree for specific performance. In  appeal to this Court it was contended on behalf  of  the appellant  that the respondent was already holding 31  acres of  jirayat land at the time the agreement was entered  into and  by acquiring another 41 acres the respondent’s  holding would exceed the ceiling prescribed by s. 5 of Bombay Act 67 of  1948,  and  further more, that the Civil  Court  had  no jurisdiction to entertain the suit for specific performance. HELD:(i)  A contract for the sale of land entered into  with the  knowledgethat the purchaser may hold land in excess  of the  ceiling  is  not  void,and  the  seller  cannot  resist enforcement on the ground that, if permitted, it will result in transgression of the law. [711 C-D] By  the acquisition declared invalid under s. 35,  the  land does not revert to the transferor; it is deemed to be in the transferee’s  ownership  and,  on  the  Mamlatdar  making  a declaration that any land held in excess of the ceiling, the excess   land  vests  in  the  Government.   The   statutory forfeiture incurred in the event of the transferee coming to hold  land in excess of the ceiling does not invalidate  the transfer between the parties. [710 E]

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 6  

There was nothing in the agreement, nor could it be  implied from  the  circumstances,  that it was  the  object  of  the parties  that  the  provisions of the Act  relating  to  the ceiling  should be transgressed.  The more possibility  that the  respondent  may  riot have  disposed  of  his  original holding  at the date of the acquisition of title  would  not render the object of the agreement such, that, if permitted, it would defeat the provisions of any law-,A,. [710 H] (ii) There was no substance in the contention that the Civil Court  had no jurisdiction to entertain and decree the  suit for  specific  performance  of an agreement  to  sell  land. Power  to  decide  whether the transfer  or  acquisition  is invalid under s. 84C and to dispose of the land as  provided in  that  section is conferred upon the Mamlatdar,  and  the civil  court has no jurisdiction in that behalf.  But  there is  nothing in el. (mb) of s. 70 or in s. 85 which  excludes the jurisdiction of the civil court to entertain a suit  for specific performance of a contract to sell land.  An inquiry under s. 84C to determine whether the transfer or                             707 acquisition   is  invalid  may  be  Made  oNLy   after   the acquisition  of  title  pursuant to a  decree  for  specific performance or otherwise. [711 D-G]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 932 of 1965. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated August 20, 1964 of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. 257 of 1960. M.   C. Chagla, B. P. Singh and R. B. Datar, for the  appel- lant. S.   V.  Gupte, N. D. Mandigi and Bhuvanesh Kumari, for  the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah,  J  ’ The appellant agreed to sell to  the  respondent Survey Nos. 5 & 12 of -village Pattihal in District Belgaum, Mysore  State,  admeasuring 41 acres 26 gunthas  of  jirayat land  for  Rs.  32,000/-.  The appellant  having  failed  to execute  a conveyance of the land, the respondent  commenced an action in the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior  Division, Belgaum,  for  a  decree for  specific  performance  of  the agreement  and for possession of the land.  The trial  court dismissed the suit holding that the agreement, if  enforced, would  result  in "transgression of the  provisions  of  the Bombay  Tenancy  and  Agricultural  Lands  Act,  1948".   In appeal,  the  High  Court of Mysore  granted  a  decree  for specific performance.  With certificate granted by the  High Court, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant. The  trial court and the High Court have concurrently  found that  the  appellant failed to prove that the  contract  was abandoned by mutual agreement, and nothing more need be said about  the  plea  raised by the  appellant.   Two  questions survive for decision in this appeal :               (1)   Whether  enforcement  of  the   contract               would result in transgression      of      the               provisions of the Bombay Tenancy    and               Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; and               (2)   Whether the civil court had jurisdiction               to    entertain   the   suit   for    specific               performance.               By s. 5 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural               Lands  Act  67  of 1948, as it  stood  at  the               relevant time, it was provided :               "(1) For the purposes of this Act, the ceiling

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 6  

             area of land shall be-               (a)   48 acres of Jirayat land, or               (b)   24 acres of seasonally irrigated land or               paddy or rice land, or               (c) 12 acres of perennially irrigated land.               708               (2)   Where the land held by a person consists               of two or more kinds of land specified in sub-               section(1),  the ceiling area of such  holding               shall  be determined on the basis of one  acre               of  perennially irrigated land being equal  to               two  acres  of seasonally  irrigated  land  or               paddy  or rice land, or four acres of  jirayat               land."               Section. 34(1) of the Act provided:               "Subject  to the provisions of section 35,  it               shall  not  be lawful, with  effect  from  the               appointed day, for any person to hold, whether               as  owner  or tenant or partly  as  owner  and               partly  as  tenant,  land  in  excess  of  the               ceiling area." The expression "to hold land" is not defined in the  Tenancy Act.  It is defined in the Land Revenue Code, and by  virtue of s. 2(21) of the Tenancy Act it has the same meaning which it  has under the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1879, i.e.,  "to be  lawfully in possession of land, whether such  possession is  actual or not" S. 3(1) of the Bombay Land Revenue  Code, 1879.  Section 35 provided that :               "Where   on   account   of   gift,   purchase,               assignment, lease, surrender or any other kind               of  transfer inter vivos or by bequest  except               in  favour of recognised heirs and land  comes               into  the  possession  of any  person  and  in               consequence  thereof, the total land  held  by               such  person  exceeds the area,  which  he  is               authorised  to  hold  under  section  34,  the               acquisition  of  such  excess  land  shall  be               invalid.               Explanation.               The material part of s. 84C provided               "(1)  Where  in  respect of  the  transfer  of               acquisition  of any land made on or after  the               commencement  of the Amending Act,  1955,  the               Mamlatdar  suo motu or on the  application  of               any person interested in such land has  reason               to  believe that such transfer or  acquisition               is  or  becomes  invalid  under  any  of   the               -provisions  of this Act, the Mamlatdar  shall               issue a notice and hold an inquiry as provided               for  in  section 84B and  decide  whether  the               transfer or acquisition is or is not invalid.               (2)   If  after  holding  such  inquiry,   the               Mamlatdar  comes  to  a  conclusion  that  the               transfer or acquisition of land is  invalid,               he   shall   make  an  order   declaring   the               transferor acquisition to be invalid.               (3)   On the declaration made by the Mamlatdar               under sub-section (2),-               709               "(a)  the land shall be deemed to vest in  the               State  Government, free from all  encumbrances               lawfully  subsisting  thereon on the  date  of               such vesting, and shall be disposed of in  the               manner provided in sub-section (4); The  appellant  resisted  the claim of  the  respondent  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 6  

specific  performance of the agreement of sale on  the  plea that  the respondent was already holding 31 acres 2  gunthas of  jirayat  land, and by acquiring 41 acres 26  gunthas  of jirayat  land,  the respondent’s holding  would  exceed  the ceiling prescribed by the statute. The  evidence on the record about the area of lands held  by the  respondent  at  the  relevant  time  is  obscure.   The agreement  was  dated July 20, 1958.  On April 1,  1960  the respondent  filed  a statement in the  Court  that,  barring lands  which  were  liable to  be  excluded  in  determining whether  the  holding  exceeded  the  ceiling,  he  was   in possession  of 11 acres 1 guntha of jirayat land.   If  that holding were to be taken into account, and, if in  pursuance of a decree for specific performance the respondent acquired possession of the land agreed to be sold, his total  holding would  exceed the ceiling.  In the trial court  the  parties proceeded to trial on the footing that if the agreement  was enforced  specifically, the holding of the respondent  would exceed the ceiling area.  In appeal, the High Court observed that there was no evidence that the respondent was a  holder of  land  in excess of the ceiling area on the date  of  the agreement nor was there evidence to show that he was holding an area of land in excess of the ceiling area on the date of the suit or even at the date of the statement dated April 1, 1960, and therefore s. 34 had no relevance.  The High  Court observed in the last paragraph of the judgment that they had not  recorded any finding about the actual area  of  jirayat land  in  the possession of the respondent at any  point  of time either on the date of the suit or on April 1, 1960, and the question was left open as desired by the parties.  Since in  the trial court the parties chose to g0 to the trial  on the  footing that if the contract is specifically  enforced, having  regard to the holding of the respondent,  the  total area  would  exceed the ceiling, we proceed  to  decide  the appeal on that footing. By s. 23 of the Contract Act, consideration or object of  an agreement  is unlawful if it is forbidden by law; or  is  of such  a  nature  that, if permitted,  it  would  defeat  the provisions  of any law; or is fraudulent.  Both the  parties to  the contract are agriculturists.  By the  agreement  the appellant agreed to sell jirayat 710 land  admeasuring  41 acres 26 gunthas for a  price  of  Rs. 32,000/The  consideration  of the agreement per se  was  not unlawful,  for  there  is  no provision  in  the  Act  which expressly  or by implication forbids a contract for sale  of agricultural  lands between two agriculturists.  Nor is  the object of the agreement to defeat the provisions of any law. The  Act  has imposed no restriction upon  the  transfer  of agricultural lands from one agriculturist to another.  It is true  that  by s. 35 a person who comes to hold,  after  the appointed  day, agricultural land in excess of the  ceiling, the   lands  having  been  acquired  either   by   purchase, assignment, lease, surrender or by bequest, the  acquisition in  excess  of  the  ceiling  is  invalid.   The  expression "acquisition  of  such  excess land shall  be  invalid"  may appear  somewhat ambiguous.  But when the scheme of the  Act is  examined,  it  is clear that  the  Legislature  has  not ,declared  the  transfer  or bequest  invalid,  for  s.  84C provides that the land in excess of the ceiling shall be  at the disposal of the Government when an order is made by  the Mamlatdar.   The invalidity of the acquisition is  therefore only to the extent to which the holding exceeds the  ceiling prescribed  by s. 5, and involves the consequence  that  the land will vest in the Government.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 6  

By  the acquisition declared invalid under s. 35,  the  land does not revert to the transferor or the testator; the  land is deemed to be of the ownership of the person acquiring  it by  transfer or by bequest and on the Mamlatdar  making  the order,  the  land  in excess of the  ceiling  vests  in  the Government.   It only will mean that the purchaser will  not be  entitled to hold the land in excess of the  ceiling  and the excess will be at the disposal of the Government. An  agreement  to sell land does not under the  Transfer  of Property  Act  create  any  interest  in  the  land  in  the purchaser.  By agreeing to purchase land, a person cannot be said  in  law to hold that land.  It is only  when  land  is conveyed   to  the  purchaser  that  he  holds  that   land. Undoubtedly the respondent was holding some area of land  at the  date of the agreement and at the date of the suit,  but on  that account it cannot be inferred that by  agreeing  to purchase land under the agreement in question his object was to  hold  in  excess of the ceiling.  It  was  open  to  the respondent to transfer or dispose of the land held by him to another   agriculturist.   The  Act  contains   no   general restrictions upon such transfers, and unless at the date  of the  acquisition the transferee holds land in excess of  the ceiling,  the acquisition to the extent of the  excess  over the  ceiling will not be invalid.  There is nothing  in  the agreement,  nor  can it be implied from  the  circumstances, that it was the object of the parties that the provisions of the Act relating to the ceiling should be transgressed.  The mere  possibility that the respondent may not have  disposed of  his original holding at the date of the  acquisition  of title pur-                             711 suant  to  the agreement entered into between  him  and  the appellant  will not, in our judgment, render the  object  of the agreement such, that, if permitted, it would defeat  the provisions  of  any law.  The Court, it is  true,  will  not enforce   a  contract  which  is  expressly   or   impliedly prohibited by statute, whatever may be the intention of  the parties,  but  there  is  nothing  to  indicate,  that   the Legislature  has  prohibited  a contract  to  transfer  land between one agriculturist and another.  The inability of the transferee to hold land in excess of the ceiling  prescribed by  the  statute  has no effect upon the  contract,  or  the operation   of  the  transfer.   The  statutory   forfeiture incurred in the event of the transferee coming to hold  land in  excess of the ceiling does not invalidate  the  transfer between the parties. We  hold that a contract for purchase of land  entered  into with  the  knowledge  that the purchaser may  hold  land  in excess  of  the ceiling is not void, and the  seller  cannot resist enforcement thereof on the ground that, if permitted, it will result in transgression of the law. There  is no substance in the argument that the civil  court had  no  jurisdiction  to entertain and decree  a  suit  for specific performance of an agreement to sell land.   Section 70  of  the  Act sets out the duties and  functions  of  the Mamlatdar  and, amongst the duties and functions  which  the Mamlatdar  for  the purpose of the Act  shall  discharge  or perform  is  the duty and function to decide  under  s.  84C whether a transfer or acquisition of land is invalid and  to dispose  of the land as provided in s. 84C.  Section  85  of the  Act excludes from the jurisdiction of the  civil  court proceedings  to settle, decide or deal with questions  which are  required by s. 70 (mb) to be settled, decided or  dealt with by the authorities specified in that behalf.  Power  to decide whether the transfer or acquisition is invalid  under

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 6  

s.  84C  and  to dispose of the land  as  provided  in  that section is undoubtedly conferred upon the Mamlatdar, and the civil  court has no jurisdiction in that behalf.  But  there is  nothing  in  cl.  (mb)  of  s.  70  which  excludes  the jurisdiction  of  the civil court to entertain  a  suit  for specific performance of a contract to sell land.  An inquiry under   s.  84C  to  determine  whether  the   transfer   or acquisition   is  invalid  may  be  made  only   after   the acquisition  of  title  pursuant to a  decree  for  specific performance  or  otherwise.  The civil court has  no  juris- diction to determine whether the acquisition is invalid, but there is nothing in s. 70 or in other provisions of the  Act which  excludes  the civil court’s  jurisdiction  to  decree -specific performance of a contract to transfer land. The  appeal  therefore fails and is  dismissed  with  costs. R.K.P.S. Appeal dismissed.. 712