ROJASARA RAMJIBHAI DAHYABHAI versus JANI NAROTTAMDAS LALLUBHAI (DEAD) BY LRS. & ANR.

Citation: [1986] 2 S.C.R. 447 · Decided: 10-04-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.P. SEN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

-
V• 
JANI NAROTIAtlillS UIUJBHAI (DEAD) 
BY UIS. & AHR. 
APRIL 10, 1986 
[A.P. SEN AND B.C. RAY, JJ,] 
447 
·I> 
A. Suit for specific performance - Agreement to sell 
contains an implied covenant on the part of the vendor to do 
all 
things necessary to give effect to the Agreement, 
including the obtaining of the permission for the transfer of 
property - Vendor who has become the statutory occupant and 
)' owner of the land and who has obtained necessary permission 
subsequently as such occupant ref uses to execute the sale-deed 
~1' on the plea that the agreement to sell entered into by him was 
interdependent on his earlier Agreement to purchase the lands 
from 
the Girasdar and 
contingent on his obtaining the 
permission and since he failed, the Agreement to sell is 
incapable of performance - Contract Act, 1872, sections 31 & 
32 -
Whether the Court can order specific performance of 
transfer - Specific Relief Act, 1877, section 13 - Doctrine of 
1'- "feeding the estoppel", applicability. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
B. Limitation Act, 1963, Article 113, applicability of -
E 
Computation of period of time from what date, explained. 
i 
The appellant-defendant who was the owner of two plots 
~ of land admeasuring 491 and 1599 square yards situate in 
' village Dudheraj 
recorded as Girasdari agricultural land 
entered into an agreement in writing (Ex.26), on October 19, 
F 
'\ 1949, with the Girasdar, Rana Mohabat Singh to purchase the 
said lands at Rs.2.50 per square yard and paid an earnest 
money of Rs.1,001. The agreement stipulated that the vendor 
was to apply for permission from the Collector to convert the 
agricultural land into village site for non-agricultural use 
and that the sale deed was to be executed after obtaining the 
G 
requisite permission• On November 14, 1949 the appellant 
i entered into another agreement to sell some property to the 
respondents Jani Narottamdas Lallubhai and Thakur Dhirajlal 
Dhaneshvar at Rs. 3. 75 per square yard agreeing to contend 
that the appellant was to get the land converted into village 
aite at his own expense and thereafter executed the sale-deed. 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
448 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1986] 2 s.c.R. 
In 1950-51 Rana Mohabat Singh applied to the Collector -'· 
for grant of permission to convert the land into village site 
but since his application was rejected he refunded the earnest 
money to the appellant. However, after coming into force of 
the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 
1951, with effect from 
September 1, 1951, the right and title of Rana Mohabat Singh 
as the ex-Girasdar were extinguished and the appellant was 
recognised to be an occupant thereof under the provisions of 
the Bombay Land Revenue Code, 1898. On 13 August, 
1957, the ~ 
appellant made an application to the revenue authorities for 
the grant of occupancy certificate, which was granted on 
6.2.58 by the 
Mamlatdar, The occupancy certificate was to 
come into effect from August 1, 1958. On two applications of 
the appellant dated June 23, 1958 and September 10, 1959 '( 
revenue authorities granted permission for converting the -f.-
lands under his possession into village site, that is, for 
non-agricultural use. 
On 
5 October, 1959 the respondents 
called upon the appellant to execute a conveyance of the 
property in accordance with the agreement of sale between the 
parties dated 14. ll.1949 and on the appellant's failure to 
comply, they filed a suit for specific performance. The Trial 
Court upheld the pleas of the appellant, namely, (i) the suit 
was barred by l '..J.tation; and (ii) the agreement between the ~ 
parties 
was 
a 
contingent 
contract 
depending 
upon 
the 
contingency referred to in the agreement (Ex.26) dated 19 
October, 1949 and since that contract became incapable of 
execution by virtue of Rana Mohabat Singh failing to obtain a 
permission of the Collector the agreement dated 14 November, 
1949, and non-suited the respondents. On appeal the High Court 
~ 
reversed the decree and held that the second agreement between 
the parties had not been cancelled by 1111tual consent and that J 
the suit was within time and that the time started, running r 
only from 10th September, 
1959, as the date on which 
requisite permission was obtained from the Collector for the 
use of the land as a village site. 
Diamissing the appeal, on certificate, the Court, 
llELD: 1.1 The agreement embodied in the suit Banakhat r 
(Ex.25) dated November 14, 1949 was not a contingent 

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