JAMBU RAO SATAPPA KOCHERI versus NEMINATH APPAYYA HANAMMANNAVER

Citation: [1968] 3 S.C.R. 706 · Decided: 10-04-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed
Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

\ 706 
JAMBU RAO SATAl'l'A KOCBEIU 
v. 
NEMINA.Ill APPAYYA HANAMMANNAVER 
April 10, 1968 
[J. C. SHAH AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Bomoay Tenancy and Agric11/t11ral Lr.ad• Act 67 of 1948-s.r. 34. 35. 
70(mb), 84C & 85-Agreement to sell land wliicli if ~rformed wo11ld 
lead to purchtued liolding land in excess of ceiling prescribed-If enforce-
abie by a decree for specific perforn1ance.--WhetMr jurisdiction of civil 
court to aH'anl decree excluded by s..'f. 70(mb) or 84C. 
The appellant agreed to sell to the respondent 41 acres of jirayat bod 
in Mysore, but failed to execute a conveyance. The respondent filed a 
suit for a decree for specific performance of the agreement and pos>eSSion 
o[ the land. 
The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the agree-
ment, if enfom:d, would result in "transgn:ssioo of the provisions of th< 
Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act 67 of 1948". Jn appeal. 
the High Court of Mysore granted a decree for specific performance. 
In appeal lo this Court it was conlendod on behalf of the appellant 
that the rc'pondeot was already holding 31 acres of jirayat land at the 
time the :1g:n.-ement was entered into and by acquiring aoother 41 acres 
the resrondent's holding would ex""'<! the ceiling preschDed by s. S of 
Bombay Ac! 67 of 1948, and further more. that the Civil Court had no 
jurisdiction to entertain the suit for specific performance. 
HELD : ( i) A eon tract for the sale of land entered into with the 
knowledge that the purchaser may bold land in excess of the ceiling is 
not void, and the seller cannot resist enforcement on the ground that, it 
permitted, it ,.;u result in transgression of the law. [711 C-DJ 
By the acquisition declared invalid under s. 35. the land does not 
rcve1 t to the transferor; it is deemed to be in the ttansferee~s ownership 
and. on the Mamlatdar making a declaration that any land held in excess 
of the ceiling. the excess lB!ld vests in the Government. The statotory 
forfeiture incurred in the event of the transferee coming to hold land in 
excess of the <>eiling does not invalidate the transfer between the parties. 
[710 El 
· 
There \\ilS nothing in the agreement. nor could it be implied from 
the circumstam:cs. that it was the object of the parties that the provisiom 
of the Act relating to the ceiling should be transgressed. The mere possi-
bility that the nspondent may not have disposed of his original holding 
at the date of the acquisition of title would not render the object of the 
agreement such. that. if permitted. it would defeat the provisions of arty 
law. 17!0 HJ 
(ii) There \Vas no substance in the contention that the Civil Court 
had no jurisdiction to entertain and decree the suit for specific perfor· 
mance of an agreement to sen land. Power to decide whether the 
transfer or acquisition is invalid under s. 84C and to dispose of the land 
as provided in that section is conferred upon the Mamlatdar, and the 
civil cOurt has no jurisdiction in that behalf. But there is nolhing in cl. 
(mb) of s. 70 or in s. 85 which excludes-the jurisdiction of the cMl 
court to entertain a suit for specific performance of a contract to Bell 
land. An inquiry under s. 84C to determine whether the transfer .or 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
JAMBU llAO V. NEMINATH (Shah, J.) 
707 
A 
acquisition is inv:ilid may be made only after the acquisition of tiUe· 
p'1t>Uant to a decree for specific performanee or otherwise. [711 D-GJ 
B 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION ; Civil Appeal No. 932 of 
1965. 
Appeal from the judgment and deaee dated August 20, 1964 
of the Mysore High Court in Regular Appeal No. 257 of 1960. 
M. C. Chagla, B. P. Singh and R. B. Datar, for the ,appel-
lant. 
S. V. Gupte, N. D. Mandigi and Bhuvanesh Kumari, for the 
respondent. 
C 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Sllah, J. The appellant agreed to sell to the respondent Sur-
vey Nos. 5 & 12 of village Pattihal in District Belgaum, Mysore 
State, admeasuring 41 acres 26 gunthas of jirayat land for Rs. 
32,000/-. The appellant having failed to execute a conveyance 
of the land, the respondent commenced an action in the Court of 
D 
the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Belgaum, for a decree for 
specific performance of the agreement and for possession of the 
land. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the agree-
ment, if enforced, would result in "transgression of the provisions 
of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948". Jn 
appeal, the High Court of Mysore grante
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.