Specific performance of agreement to sell tribal land remains enforceable, with statutory sanction required only before conveyance.

A statutory restriction on transfer of tribal land that requires prior governmental sanction does not, by itself, invalidate an agreement to sell or prevent a suit for specific performance. The prohibition operates at the stage of actual conveyance, when execution and registration of the sale deed occur, not at the stage of contract formation or receipt of earnest money. Accordingly, specific performance may be decreed if the contractual requirements are otherwise met, with compliance to be secured before conveyance where sanction is legally necessary. The principle is that contractual enforcement and statutory transfer control operate at different stages.

---

---

Issues: Whether a decree for specific performance could be granted on an agreement to sell tribal land to a non-tribal, and whether Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code barred such a suit at the agreement stage.

Analysis: Section 36A imposes a restriction on the actual transfer of tribal occupancy in favour of a non-tribal without the requisite previous sanction, but it does not prohibit a tribal from entering into an agreement to sell or receiving earnest money. The conveyance by sale occurs only upon execution and registration of the sale deed, and the requirement of prior sanction arises at the stage of transfer. Since the defendant had not performed his contractual obligation to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff was entitled to seek specific performance. The law governing specific performance, including the buyer's readiness and willingness, had to be applied independently of the later requirement of sanction. The earlier authority on agreements requiring governmental permission supported the view that the agreement could be enforced subject to obtaining the necessary sanction at the stage of conveyance.

Conclusion: Section 36A did not bar the suit for specific performance, and the plaintiff was entitled to a decree for specific performance subject to obtaining the requisite sanction before conveyance.

Final Conclusion: The refusal of specific performance was unsustainable, and the suit ought to have been decreed in favour of the plaintiff with compliance to follow at the stage of conveyance if required by law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory restriction on transfer requiring prior governmental sanction does not, by itself, bar a decree for specific performance of an agreement to sell; the decree may be granted and enforced subject to obtaining the necessary sanction before actual conveyance.

---