Babasaheb Dhondiba Kute vs. Radhu Vithoba Barde
The dispute revolved around an agreement to sell agricultural land in Maharashtra, executed on July 31, 2001, between Babasaheb Dhondiba Kute (plaintiff) and Radhu Vithoba Barde (defendant), a tribal landowner. The plaintiff paid nearly the entire sale consideration (₹2,20,000 out of ₹2,25,000) and claimed to have received possession in 2003. However, the defendant failed to execute the sale deed, prompting the plaintiff to file a suit for specific performance or, alternatively, for refund of the advance.
Legal Issue
The central legal question was whether a decree for specific performance could be granted for the sale of tribal land to a non-tribal when such a transfer required prior permission from the competent authority under Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The case also examined whether an agreement to sell, in the absence of such permission, was void or merely required compliance at the stage of conveyance.
Lower Courts' Findings
The trial court denied specific performance but ordered a refund of the advance with interest.
The first appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision but increased the interest rate from 6% to 14%.
The High Court also refused specific performance, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis
The Supreme Court clarified that Section 36A does not prohibit entering into an agreement to sell tribal land; it only restricts the actual conveyance (i.e., execution and registration of the sale deed) without prior government sanction.
The Court held that a decree for specific performance can be granted, but its enforcement must be conditional upon obtaining the required permission from the competent authority. If permission is refused, the plaintiff would be entitled to a refund of the consideration paid.
The Court emphasized that the conveyance of property occurs only at the registration of the sale deed, not at the stage of agreement to sell. Therefore, there is no bar to entering into such an agreement even if prior permission is yet to be obtained.
The judgment harmonizes the protection of tribal land with the rights of bona fide purchasers, setting a precedent that agreements to sell are valid, but the sale’s completion is subject to statutory compliance.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts’ refusal of specific performance, and directed that a decree for specific performance be granted, subject to the plaintiff obtaining the necessary government permission. If permission is denied, the plaintiff is entitled to a refund of the amount paid, with interest.
Significance
This ruling provides clarity on the interplay between tribal land protection laws and contract law in Maharashtra. It affirms that while agreements to sell tribal land are legally valid, their enforcement is subject to statutory safeguards for tribal interests, balancing both parties’ rights.
Citation:
Babasaheb Dhondiba Kute vs. Radhu Vithoba Barde, 2024 INSC 122, Supreme Court of India, decided on February 15, 2024.
RELATED Blog
0 comments