TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Agreement to sell within 15-year prohibition period under Section 61 Reforms Act renders transaction invalid and unenforceable</h1> <h3>Narayanamma and Ors. Versus Govindappa and Ors.</h3> Narayanamma and Ors. Versus Govindappa and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Enforceability of the agreement to sell during the non-alienation period under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961.2. Limitation period for filing the suit for specific performance.3. The validity of the trial court's judgment versus the appellate court's judgment.Detailed Analysis:1. Enforceability of the Agreement to Sell:The primary issue revolves around whether the agreement to sell dated 15.05.1990, executed by Bale Venkataramanappa in favor of the Plaintiff, is enforceable in law. The court examined Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, which imposes a 15-year non-alienation period on the transfer of granted land. The section explicitly prohibits the transfer by sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease, or assignment within this period. The court noted that the agreement to sell was executed within this prohibited period, making the transaction invalid and unenforceable. The court held that the trial judge was correct in dismissing the suit based on this statutory bar.2. Limitation Period for Filing the Suit:The Defendants contended that the suit for specific performance, filed in 1999 for an agreement made in 1990, was beyond the limitation period. The High Court, however, did not frame an issue regarding the Plaintiff's readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract, which is a necessary consideration in such suits. The Supreme Court did not delve deeply into this issue, focusing instead on the statutory prohibition under Section 61 of the Reforms Act.3. Validity of the Trial Court's Judgment versus the Appellate Court's Judgment:The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the agreement void due to the non-alienation clause. The first appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the non-alienation clause did not prohibit the agreement to sell and that the Plaintiff had paid the entire consideration and taken possession. The High Court upheld the appellate court's decision, but the Supreme Court found that both the Plaintiff and the predecessor-in-title of the Defendants were equally responsible for the illegal transaction. The Supreme Court emphasized that the agreement was void under Section 61 of the Reforms Act, and thus, the Plaintiff's claim could not be sustained.The court applied the principles from previous judgments, such as Kedar Nath Motani v. Prahlad Rai and Immani Appa Rao v. Gollapalli Ramalingamurthi, which discuss the application of legal maxims like 'ex turpi causa non oritur actio' (no action arises from a base cause) and 'in pari delicto' (in equal fault). The court concluded that the Plaintiff could not base his claim on an illegal transaction and that granting relief would be against public policy.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the judgments of the High Court and the first appellate court, and upheld the trial court's order dismissing the suit. The agreement to sell was found to be void and unenforceable due to the statutory prohibition under Section 61 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs.
TaxTMI 