An agreement to sell new-tenure land without prior Collector permission is void and unenforceable under Section 43.

The appellant-plaintiff claimed that he had purchased the suit property from Defendant No. 9 in 2010 and obtained possession.

In 2015, Defendant No. 9 executed an agreement to sell and an irrevocable power of attorney in his favour.

The plaintiff later challenged a sale deed executed in favour of Respondent No. 11 and sought, among other reliefs, specific performance and cancellation of that deed.

The trial court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, holding that the claim was barred by Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, and limitation.

The plaintiff appealed.

Whether the plaint was liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC because the agreement to sell concerned new-tenure land and was allegedly executed without the prior permission required by Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948.

Whether, on the plaint’s averments, the claim for enforcement of the agreement to sell was barred by limitation.

Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the court deciding an application to reject a plaint considers the plaint’s averments and the documents filed with it.

Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 provides that a contract for the sale of immovable property does not, by itself, create an interest in or charge on the property.

The court applied Section 43 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 on the basis that a transfer of new-tenure land without the required prior Collector’s permission is void.

It also applied the limitation rule that a suit to enforce an agreement to sell must be brought within three years from the date fixed for performance or, if no date is fixed, from the date of refusal.

Examining the plaint and its accompanying documents, the Court noted that Defendant No. 9 was himself only an agreement-holder and that the 2015 agreement did not confer title on the plaintiff under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.

The Court further concluded that the agreement related to new-tenure land and, absent prior permission from the Collector, was unenforceable under Section 43.

It also found the specific-performance claim time-barred: the agreement was dated 3 February 2015, while the suit was filed on 19 April 2021, beyond the three-year period applied by the Court.

The plaint therefore disclosed claims barred by law.

The appeal was dismissed, the pending civil application for stay was disposed of, and there was no order as to costs.