SMT ANURADHA OSTWAL vs SRI R MAHENDRA KUMAR SHAH

- 1 -
R


IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 16 DAY OF APRIL, 2026



BEFORE


THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS


CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.571 OF 2022




BETWEEN:


1 . SMT ANURADHA OSTWAL
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
W/O ASHOK G OSTWAL





2 . ASHOK G OSTWAL
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS


BOTH ARE R/AT NO.169, ASHRAY,
ND
AECS LAYOUT, 2 MAIN,
ST
1 CROSS, RMV II STAGE,
SANJAYNAGAR,
BANGALORE 560 094.




...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIKRAM.G., ADVOCATE FOR
SRI. B PRASANNA KUMAR., ADVOCATE)

AND





1 . SRI R MAHENDRA KUMAR SHAH
S/O RAICHAND SHAH
AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY HIS GPA HOLDER
MR. NITHIN SHAH
S/O KHETSHI SHAH
NHMS BUILDING,
CUBBONPET MAIN ROAD,
BANGALORE 560 002.

2 . SRI. MUNIKRISHNAMMA

- 2 -


W/O LATE P. MUNISHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

3 . SMT. MANJULA
D/O LATE P. MUNISHAMAIAH
AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS
RESPONDENT NO.2 & 3
R/A ILLTHORE VILLAGE
KUNDANA HOBLI,
DEVANAHALLI TALUK,
BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT.
…..RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. S. SUBRAMANYA., ADVOCATE BY UPASANA
ASSOCIATES FOR GPA HOLDER FOR R1
R2 & R3 SERVED & UNREPRESENTED)



THIS CRP FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CPC, AGAINST
THE ORDER DATED 05.08.2022 PASSED ON I.A.XIX IN
OS.NO.1252/2006 ON THE FILE OF THE III ADDITIONAL
SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI, C/C IIND
ADDL. SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, DEVANAHALLI
REJECTING THE I.A.XIX FILED UNDER ORDER 7 RULE 11 (d) OF
CPC.

THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED ON
27.01.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
ORDERS, THIS DAY, THIS COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS
CAV ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R DEVDAS)

This Civil Revision Petition is filed under Section 115
of the Code of Civil Procedure at the hands of defendants
No.1 and 2 in O.S.No.1252/2006 on the file of the learned

- 3 -


III Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, at Devanahalli,
being aggrieved of the rejection of their interlocutory
application filed under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of
Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as ‘CPC’ for short).

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be
referred to in terms of their ranking before the Trial Court.

3. Respondent No.1-plaintiff filed the suit seeking the
following reliefs:
a) Direct the Defendant No.1, 3 and 4 herein to
jointly execute the sale deed transferring the suit
'schedule property by way of conveyance in the
name of the plaintiff by receiving the agreed
balance sale consideration amount and on their
failure to comply, though agency of this Hon'ble
Court.

b) To declare that the sale deed executed by the
defendants No.3 and 4 in favor of the first
defendant on 27.5.2004 under the Document No.
439/2004-05 in respect of the suit schedule
property does not bind the plaintiff in respect of
the suit schedule property or any portion thereof.

c) Declare that the sale deed dated 11.11.2005,
registered in the Office of the Sub-Registrar,
Devanahalli as Document No. DNH-1-03935-
2005-06, Book-1, stored in CD No. DNHD67
executed by the third and fourth defendants in
favour of the fifth defendant is not binding on me.


Or in the alternative,

- 4 -


Direct the fifth defendant and/or any person/s
claiming under or through him to join for the
execution of the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff
to assure better title to the plaintiff with respect
to suit Schedule Property.

b2) Order for the deletion of the encumbrances
created by Defendants 1-5 over the suit Schedule
Properties contrary to the rights of the plaintiff.

c) By way of permanent injunction restrain the
defendants, their servants, agents or any person
claiming through or under them either individually
or collectively from causing any interference in
the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment
of the suit schedule property.

d) To grant such other relief or other relief that
this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the
facts and circumstances of the case including the
cost of these proceedings in the interest of justice
and equity.


4. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed written statement
contending that the agreement of sale dated 07.11.1997
entered into between the plaintiff and defendants No.3
and 4 is an invalid document, inasmuch as the agreement
would amount to ‘transfer’ as defined in the Karnataka
Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prohibition of
Transfer of Certain Lands) Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred
to as ‘PTCL Act’ for short) and even an agreement of sale
would amount to transfer and therefore such transaction is
barred under Section 4(2) of the Act. Although defendants

- 5 -


No.1 and 2 admitted execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU for short) between the plaintiff and
defendants No.1 and 2, nevertheless defendants No.1 and
2 denied receiving any money from the plaintiff under the
MOU. Defendants No.1 and 2 filed an application under
Order VII Rule 11(d) seeking rejection of the plaint on the
ground that the agreement of sale dated 07.11.1997
between the plaintiff and defendants No.3 and 4 is
opposed to public policy and being barred under Section
4(2) of the PTCL Act, the agreement cannot be enforced
before a Civil Court. The Trial Court however rejected the
application.

5. Learned Counsel for defendants No.1 and 2
submitted that the Trial Court has erred in coming to a
conclusion that it is doubtful as to whether the agreement
of sale dated 07.11.1997 is hit by the provisions of the
PTCL Act or not. The Trial Court is of the opinion that it is
for defendants No.3 and 4 to say as to whether the suit
schedule property was granted to a person belonging to
Scheduled Caste or Scheduled Tribe community and

- 6 -


whether prior permission of the Government was required
to be taken under Section 4(2) of the PTCL Act. In this
regard, learned Counsel for defendants No.1 and 2
submitted that the very fact that agreement of sale dated
07.11.1997 was presented in the office of the Sub-
Registrar, Devanahalli, for registration and it is admitted
that the registration was refused by an endorsement given
by the Sub-Registrar to secure permission of the
Government is sufficient to conclude that the suit schedule
property was in fact granted to a person belonging to
Scheduled Caste community and therefore, prior
permission of the Government under Section 4(2) was
necessary.

6. Learned Counsel placed reliance on a decision of
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dharma Naika
Vs. Rama Naika and Another reported in (2008) 14
SCC 517 where it was held that an agreement of sale in
respect of a granted land as defined in the PTCL Act,
would amount to ‘transfer’ and therefore any claim on the
basis of such agreement of sale would attract the rigors of

- 7 -


the PTCL Act. Further, reliance was placed on
Venkatanarayanappa Vs. Siddappa reported in (2007)
3 Kant LJ 37 where it was held that no right, title or
interest in a granted land shall be conveyed or be deemed
ever to have been conveyed by such transfer and an
agreement of sale of granted land is opposed to Section
4(2) of the Act and therefore, it is not a contract in the
eye of law. Such an agreement of sale cannot be enforced
in a court of law and no decree for specific performance of
such agreement could be enforced in a court of law.
Further, attention of this Court was drawn to a decision of
a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of
Smt.Satyam Lakshmi Vs. Sri K.M.Krishna Murthy and
Others in CRP No.509/2012 dated 07.03.2022 where it
was held that such an agreement in respect of a granted
land as defined in the PTCL Act is void and unenforceable
in the court of law. It was therefore held that the plaintiff
cannot pursue the suit for the relief of specific
performance.

7. Per contra, learned Counsel for the plaintiff
contended that the plaintiff has stated in the plaint that

- 8 -


after refusal of registration of the agreement of sale at the
hands of the Sub-Registrar, the plaintiff entered into a
Memorandum of Understanding with defendants No.1 and
2 and defendants No.1 and 2 undertook to obtain
necessary permission from the concerned authorities. The
learned Counsel drew the attention of this Court to a
decision of a co-ordinate bench of this Court in the case of
D.B.Thagaraj Vs. Jayappa and Another AIR 2020
KAR 175 where it was held, even after noticing the
decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Dharma Naika (supra), that if the intending purchaser
enters into an agreement with a clear stipulation in the
agreement that the agreement of sale would be proceeded
to its logical conclusion only if Government grants
permission for transfer, such an agreement of sale cannot
be said to be either void or in violation of the PTCL Act.

8. Having heard the learned Counsels for defendants
No.1 and 2 and the plaintiff and on perusing the petition
papers, this Court finds that the decision of the co-
ordinate Bench in the case of D.B.Thagaraj (supra), even

- 9 -


if applied to the present case, on facts it would be clear
that in the agreement of sale dated 07.11.1997, there is
no such stipulation that the transaction would be
proceeded only after obtaining prior permission at the
hands of the Government under Section 4(2) of the PTCL
Act. It is also an admitted fact that the agreement of sale
when presented before the Sub-Registrar for registration,
the same was refused while issuing an endorsement that
the provisions of the PTCL Act are attracted and prior
permission of the Government under Section 4(2) was
necessary. Even after such refusal, the plaintiff did not
enter into a fresh agreement with defendants No.3 and 4,
stipulating the condition that the transaction would be
proceeded after obtaining prior permission from the
Government. On the other hand, if the plaintiff entered
into an MoU with defendants No.1 and 2 with an
understanding that defendants No.1 and 2 will obtain the
permission from the Government or the concerned
authorities, such stipulation cannot be read into the
agreement of sale dated 07.11.1997.

- 10 -


9. In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the agreement of sale dated
07.11.1997 is unenforceable in a court of law. The suit for
specific performance of the agreement of sale dated
07.11.1997 is not maintainable in the eye of law. The suit
is clearly barred by the provisions of the PTCL Act.


10. In fact, Section 4(3) of the PTCL Act provides
that the provisions of sub-sections (1) and (2) shall apply
also to the sale of any land in execution of a decree or
order of a Civil Court or of any award or order of any other
authority. Therefore, even if such a decree for specific
performance of an agreement of sale in respect of a
granted land as defined in the PTCL Act is passed by a
Civil Court, the rigors of the provisions of the PTCL Act
would apply and such a decree for specific performance
can be annulled by the authority under the PTCL Act. At
any rate, such a suit for specific performance of an
agreement of sale in respect of granted lands as defined in
the PTCL Act cannot be entertained by the Civil Courts.

- 11 -


11. Consequently, the Civil Revision Petition is
allowed . The impugned order dated 05.08.2022 in
O.S.No.1252/2006 passed by the learned III Addl. Senior
Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, is hereby quashed and
set aside. As a result, the plaint in O.S.No.1252/2006
stands rejected, while allowing I.A.XIX filed by defendants
No.1 and 2 under Order VII Rule 11(d) read with Section
151 of CPC.


Accordingly, pending I.A.s, stand disposed of.




Sd/-
(R DEVDAS)
JUDGE



JT/-
CT: JL