Section 23 and specific performance: an agreement is not void unless illegality is inherent, prohibited, or inevitable in performance.

An agreement of sale is not void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 unless its object is illegal, expressly or impliedly prohibited, or its performance necessarily requires disobedience to law; a merely possible unlawful result is insufficient. On the facts discussed, the tenancy ceiling provisions did not prohibit the agreement itself, lawful performance remained possible, and the contract was therefore treated as enforceable. The Civil Court was also considered competent to decide enforceability in a specific performance suit before any actual transfer or acquisition occurred, since the statutory authority's jurisdiction arose only after such an event. The analysis further notes that abandonment had to be proved by the defendant and was not established on the evidence.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the agreement of sale had been abandoned by the plaintiff; (ii) whether the agreement was void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 because its performance would defeat the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948; (iii) whether the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the enforceability of the agreement.

Issue (i): whether the agreement of sale had been abandoned by the plaintiff.

Analysis: The burden of proving abandonment lay on the defendant. The evidence relied upon for abandonment was found unreliable and inconsistent, and the surrounding circumstances did not establish that the agreement had been cancelled or surrendered by the plaintiff.

Conclusion: The alleged abandonment was not proved and the finding was in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (ii): whether the agreement was void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 because its performance would defeat the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Analysis: The statutory scheme prohibited holding or acquiring land in excess of the ceiling area, but it did not expressly or impliedly prohibit an agreement of sale of the kind in question. The agreement was not shown to have been entered into for an illegal object, and its performance did not necessarily require disobedience to law. Since lawful modes of performance were possible, the agreement could not be treated as void merely because an illegal result might hypothetically follow in some circumstances.

Conclusion: The agreement was not void and remained enforceable in favour of the plaintiff.

Issue (iii): whether the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to decide the enforceability of the agreement.

Analysis: The statutory jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 arose only after an actual transfer or acquisition had come into existence. In a suit for specific performance, where the validity of the agreement itself was in issue before any transfer had been completed, the Civil Court was the proper forum to decide enforceability.

Conclusion: The Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide the suit.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the trial court was reversed and specific performance was directed, leaving the statutory authorities' separate jurisdiction unaffected and not finally determining the actual extent of land held by the plaintiff.

Ratio Decidendi: An agreement is not void under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 unless its object is illegal, it is expressly or impliedly prohibited, or its performance necessarily involves disobedience to law; a mere possibility of unlawful result does not suffice, and where the statutory prohibition operates only upon an eventual acquisition or possession, the Civil Court may still decide a suit for specific performance before that event occurs.

---