Specific performance of agricultural land sale upheld despite ceiling law concerns under tenancy legislation.

A contract for sale of agricultural land is not void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act merely because its performance may later place the purchaser above the ceiling under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; the agreement itself creates no interest in the land, and any ceiling consequence arises only on acquisition of title, with excess land liable to vest in the Government. The tenancy statute also does not exclude civil court jurisdiction to grant specific performance, because the Mamlatdar's powers under Sections 70, 84C and 85 operate after title passes and do not bar enforcement of the contract. Specific performance was therefore maintainable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether an agreement to sell agricultural land is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 because its enforcement may result in the purchaser holding land in excess of the ceiling under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; (ii) Whether the civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit for specific performance of such an agreement.

Issue (i): Whether an agreement to sell agricultural land is void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 because its enforcement may result in the purchaser holding land in excess of the ceiling under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Analysis: The agreement to sell did not, by itself, create any interest in the land, and the mere possibility that the purchaser may later come to hold land in excess of the ceiling did not make the object of the contract unlawful. The ceiling provisions operated only upon acquisition of title and only to the extent of the excess, with the consequence that such excess could vest in the Government. The Act did not prohibit a contract for sale of agricultural land between agriculturists, nor did it forbid enforcement of such a contract merely because the purchaser might later be unable to retain the whole of the land acquired.

Conclusion: The agreement was not void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, and specific performance could not be resisted on the ground that enforcement might lead to a ceiling violation.

Issue (ii): Whether the civil court lacks jurisdiction to entertain a suit for specific performance of such an agreement.

Analysis: The powers conferred on the Mamlatdar under Sections 70, 84C and 85 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 relate to deciding whether an acquisition is invalid after title has passed and to dealing with the land in accordance with that Act. Those provisions do not exclude the ordinary civil court's jurisdiction to decree specific performance of a contract to transfer land. The inquiry under Section 84C arises only after acquisition of title pursuant to a decree or otherwise.

Conclusion: The civil court had jurisdiction to entertain and decree the suit for specific performance.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed because the contract was enforceable and the civil court could grant specific performance notwithstanding the ceiling provisions of the tenancy law.

Ratio Decidendi: A contract for sale of land is not void merely because the purchaser may, on acquisition of title, come to hold land in excess of a statutory ceiling, and the civil court's jurisdiction to decree specific performance is not excluded unless the statute expressly or by necessary implication bars it.

---