G.T. GIRISH versus Y. SUBBA RAJU (D) BY LRS AND ANOTHER

Citation: [2022] 8 S.C.R. 991 · Decided: 18-01-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.M. JOSEPH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 7 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
991
[2022] 8 S.C.R. 991
991
G.T. GIRISH
v.
Y. SUBBA RAJU (D) BY LRs AND ANOTHER
(Civil Appeal No. 380 of 2022)
JANUARY 18, 2022
[K. M. JOSEPH AND
PAMIDIGHANTAM SRI NARASIMHA, JJ.]
Specific Performance – Suit for – Maintainability – Plaint
property was allotted to first defendant by Bangalore Development
Authority (BDA) and a lease-cum-sale agreement was entered into
between BDA and the first defendant on 04.04.1979 – On
17.11.1982, the first defendant entered into the agreement with the
plaintiff agreeing to execute the sale deed of the site within three
months from the date on which, the plaintiff obtained the sale deed
from the BDA – Failure to execute the sale deed by first defendant
– Plaintiff instituted suit seeking specific performance – Trial Court
did not decree the suit for specific performance – On appeal, High
Court held the suit to be maintainable and directed the defendants
to execute the sale deed of plaint property in favour of plaintiff –
Whether the agreement to sell dated 17.11.1982 was in the teeth of
s.23 of the Contract Act and led to palpable defeat of the law in
question, as contained in the Statutory Rules or prohibited by the
same – Held: Case herein was governed by the Allotment of Site
Rules, 1972 which were statutory Rules, and contemplated a definite
scheme – Allotment to first defendant was made on 04.04.1979 and
he was obliged to construct a residential building within two years
under Rule 17(6) – But, at the time, agreement dated 17.11.1982
was entered into, the first defendant was already in breach – Under
the agreement, the parties expressly provided that the plaintiff was
to be put in possession of the site on 17.11.1982 – Clear case where
enforcing the agreement, as it is, would necessarily result in the
first defendant not acting in accordance with lease-cum-sale
agreement, which, she entered into with the BDA and importantly,
against the mandate of the law, as contained in the Rules –
Agreement between the parties contemplated giving a short shrift to
the mandate of the law – This is clear from the fact that under the
agreement, the first defendant was obliged to sell the site as it is –
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
992
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 8 S.C.R.
Construction of the building became a practical impossibility – The
price, agreed upon, was qua the site alone – The consideration and
the other terms of the agreement ruled out the possibility of a
residential building being constructed by the first defendant, who
as the allottee, was, under the law, obliged to construct the building
– The agreement to sell involved clearly terms which were impliedly
prohibited by law in that the first defendant was thereunder to deliver
title to the site and prevented from acting upon the clear obligation
under law – The contract / agreement was unenforceable for reason
that it clearly defeated the objects of the Rules which were statutory
in nature – The contract / agreement was patently illegal – High
Court erred in holding the suit for specific performance to be
maintainable – City of Bangalore Improvement Allotment of Site
Rules, 1972.
Contract Act, 1872 – s.23 – Constitution of India – Art.13 –
What is contemplated u/s.23 of the Contract Act is law, in all its
forms, being immunised from encroachment and infringement by a
contract, being enforced – Not only would a Statutory Rule be law
within the meaning of Art.13 of the Constitution but it would also
be law u/s.23 of the Contract Act.
Contract – A contract may expressly or impliedly, be prohibited
by provisions of a law – The intentions of the parties do not salvage
such a contract.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. A contract may expressly or impliedly, be
prohibited by provisions of a law. The intentions of the parties do
not salvage such a contract. In the instant case, the Bangalore
Rules of Allotment, 1972 contemplate a definite scheme. Land,
which is acquired by the Public Authority, is meant to be utilised
for the particular purpose. The object of the law is to invite
applications from eligible persons, who are to be selected by a
Committee and the sites are allotted to those eligible persons,
so that the chosen ones are enabled to put up structures, which
are meant to be residential houses. It is implicit in the Rules,
and what is more, in the lease-cum-sale agreement, that the
allottee, who is treated as a lessee under Rule 7, will remain in
possession and, what is more, proceed to fulfil his obligation under
the l

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.