Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell hit by Section 43 of Tenancy Act is not maintainable.

The Appellant (plaintiff) filed a suit for specific performance regarding an agreement to sell executed on May 2, 2005, for a parcel of land in Surat.

The land is "new tenure land" governed by Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which restricts transfer without prior permission.

The agreement stipulated that the defendants would obtain the necessary conversion permissions, but they allegedly failed to do so.

The defendants filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11(A) of the CPC, arguing the suit was barred by law because the agreement was executed without prior Collector permission.

The trial court rejected the plaint, leading to this appeal.

1. Whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell in respect of new tenure land, executed without the prior permission of the Collector as required under Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, is maintainable under the law.

Section 43 of the Gujarat Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948, which prohibits the transfer of restricted tenure land without the previous sanction of the Collector.

The binding precedent of the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Decd Shaikh Ismailbhai Hushainbhai Through Lh v. Vankar Ambalal Dhanabhai (2024), which established that an agreement to sell hit by Section 43 is illegal/invalid, and a suit based on such an agreement is liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 of the CPC.

The Court noted that the suit land’s status as "new tenure" under Section 43 is undisputed.

Applying the logic of the Full Bench in Shaikh Ismailbhai, the Court reasoned that any agreement to sell such land without prior statutory permission is a contravention of law.

Since the cause of action was based entirely on this invalid agreement, the court found the suit lacked maintainability.

The Court further observed that the Full Bench’s position had attained finality following the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition (SLP) by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Consequently, there was no legal error in the trial court's decision to reject the plaint at the threshold under Order 7 Rule 11(A).

The High Court dismissed the First Appeal, affirming the trial court's order dated March 11, 2024, which rejected the plaint. Any interim relief previously granted was vacated, and the registry was directed to return the Record and Proceedings to the lower court.