Supreme Court affirms High Court decision on land purchase agreement

The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision regarding the validity and enforceability of the agreement for specific performance of purchasing land, stating that the agreement did not create an interest in the land under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act. The Court also agreed with the finding that the plaintiff demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform the contract. The issue of limitation was not examined in the second appeal due to not being raised earlier. Additionally, the Court did not allow the appellants to raise a plea regarding the applicability of Section 31 of the Act for the first time in the appeal, dismissing the appeal for lack of merit.

---

---

Issues:
1. Validity and enforceability of the agreement under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act.
2. Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff for specific performance.
3. Limitation period for the suit.
4. Applicability of Section 31 of the Act to the agreement.

Validity and Enforceability of the Agreement:
The respondent filed a suit for specific performance of agreements to purchase a share of land from the appellants. The High Court held that the agreement was not void under Section 48 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Society Act as it did not create any interest in the land. The Court distinguished between an agreement to sell and a sale, stating that the former enables specific performance but does not create an interest in the land. Additionally, since the dues of the Land Development Bank were repaid, Section 48 did not apply. The Supreme Court concurred with this finding, upholding the High Court's decision.

Readiness and Willingness of the Plaintiff:
The High Court found that the plaintiff had shown readiness and willingness to perform the contract, a factual finding binding on the Court in the second appeal. The Court upheld this decision, stating that the first Appellate Court had considered all evidence and reached a valid conclusion. The Supreme Court agreed with this finding, emphasizing that readiness and willingness being factual matters could not be disturbed in a second appeal.

Limitation Period for the Suit:
Regarding the limitation issue, the High Court held that since it was not raised before the Trial Court or the first Appellate Court, it could not be examined in the second appeal. The Supreme Court concurred with this decision, stating that the High Court's finding on limitation was valid and did not warrant interference in the appeal.

Applicability of Section 31 of the Act:
The appellants raised a plea regarding the applicability of Section 31 of the Act for the first time in the Supreme Court appeal. The Court noted that this plea was not raised in previous proceedings and emphasized that a party must lay the foundation for such challenges in the pleadings. As the plea was neither raised nor considered earlier, the Supreme Court did not allow the appellants to raise it for the first time in the appeal. The Court found no merit in the submissions made by the appellants and dismissed the appeal accordingly.

---