Bombay High Court Dismisses Appeal in Agricultural Land Possession Dispute — “Unregistered Sale Agreement Post Section 17(1A) of Registration Act Cannot Confer Protection Under Section 53A of Transfer of Property Act”

Court’s Decision

The Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), presided by Justice Rohit W. Joshi, dismissed the Second Appeal filed by the original defendant who was aggrieved by the concurrent decrees passed by the lower courts granting possession of agricultural land to the original plaintiff (respondent).

The Court held that:

“Even if the questions of law are answered in favour of the appellant, the final outcome of the suit will remain the same… the questions framed in the appeal cannot be said to be substantial questions of law.”

The Court also rejected two Civil Applications (Nos. 280/2022 and 1324/2023) filed by the appellant seeking to produce additional evidence, observing that even if such evidence is considered, the final result of the suit and appeal would remain unchanged.

Facts

• The dispute concerned agricultural land (Gut No.131, admeasuring 2.72 HR) at Kavthal, Buldhana district.
• The plaintiff (respondent) is the admitted owner of the suit land.
• An agreement to sell dated 18.04.2006 was executed between the parties, whereby the appellant (defendant) agreed to purchase the land for ₹3,50,000, of which ₹3,00,000 was paid on the date of agreement.
• The land was situated in the benefit zone of Jeegaon Resettlement Project under the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons (Rehabilitation) Act, 1999 (“1999 Act”), and sale was barred under Section 12 of that Act.
• The sale deed was never executed. The plaintiff issued legal notices dated 03.05.2008 and 17.07.2008 calling upon the defendant to complete the sale deed. No response led to the filing of Regular Civil Suit No. 120/2008 for possession.

The defendant resisted the suit by invoking Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act and claimed that she was always willing to perform her part. She also alleged that the ban had been lifted and she had waited for the plaintiff at the Sub-Registrar’s office on 17.10.2006.

Issues Raised in the Second Appeal

The appeal was admitted on three questions of law:

1. Whether the lower appellate court erred in casting a burden on the appellant to prove that the ban on sale continued beyond the 2006 GR?
2. Whether payment of ₹3,00,000/- towards sale consideration showed the appellant’s readiness and willingness to perform her part?
3. Whether, in light of the Government Resolution dated 29.06.2006, the sale deed was required to be executed within the stipulated time?

Petitioner’s Arguments (Appellant/Defendant)

• Claimed protection under Section 53A for possession based on part-performance of the contract.
• Argued that she was present at the Sub-Registrar’s office on 17.10.2006 ready for execution of the deed.
• Filed Civil Applications under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to produce:
  • Certificate dated 06.12.2021 from Deputy Executive Engineer stating that the suit property was still under the benefit zone.
  • Government Resolution dated 29.07.2006 supporting continued prohibition under the 1999 Act.

Respondent’s Arguments (Plaintiff)

• Argued that the agreement dated 18.04.2006 was unregistered, and therefore unenforceable under Section 53A.
• Cited Section 17(1A) of the Registration Act (introduced by amendment effective 24.09.2001), which mandates registration of documents affecting immovable property for claiming any rights under Section 53A.
• Therefore, even if the appellant was willing, statutory bar prevented reliance on an unregistered document.

Analysis of the Law

The Court held:

• The agreement was executed after the insertion of Section 17(1A) in the Registration Act, 1908. Therefore, the agreement had no effect under Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act unless registered.
• The trial court rightly decreed possession in favour of the plaintiff, as ownership was undisputed and the only defence (Section 53A) was unavailable due to lack of registration.
• The First Appellate Court correctly upheld the decree, also holding that breach of contract had been committed by the defendant, further disentitling her to claim protection under Section 53A.

Precedent Analysis

The High Court referred to multiple precedents to clarify the narrow scope of Second Appeals under Section 100 CPC and the requirements for a question of law to be “substantial”:

1. Ramratan Pandurang Sunwani v. Maya Ramratan Sunwani [(2010) 4 Mh.L.J. 154]
   • Reiterates that unless a question of law materially alters the outcome of the case, it is not a “substantial” question.
2. Chandrabhan through LRs v. Saraswati and Others [(2022) 20 SCC 199]
   • Emphasised that only substantial questions of law that can affect the final result of the case warrant a Second Appeal.
3. Kiccha Sugar Co. Ltd. v. Roofrite Pvt. Ltd. [(2009) 16 SCC 280]
   • Held that at final hearing, even if substantial questions were framed at admission, the court can hold them to be unsubstantial with reasons.
4. K.K. Kannan v. Koolivathukkal Karikkan Mandi [(2010) 2 SCC 239]
   • Supported the above view and emphasized proper reasoning for determining absence of a substantial question.
5. Tertuliano Renato de Silva v. Francisco Lourenco [2018 (1) Mh.L.J. 135]
   • Explained the application of Section 100(5) CPC and limitation of Second Appeal to questions that can overturn the decision.

Court’s Reasoning

• Even assuming the appellant was willing, her possession could not be protected under Section 53A without a registered agreement.
• The ownership of the plaintiff was not disputed, and hence he was entitled to seek recovery of possession.
• The three framed questions of law, even if answered in favour of the appellant, would not reverse the decree of possession.
• Hence, the Court ruled that none of the questions qualified as “substantial questions of law.”

The applications under Order 41 Rule 27 were also dismissed, as the documents sought to be introduced (certificate and GR) would not affect the outcome either.

Conclusion

The Second Appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The Court held that:

“The questions framed in the appeal therefore, cannot be said to be substantial questions of law.”

It further clarified that:

“The suit for specific performance filed by the appellant shall be decided on its own merits and in accordance with law.”

Implications

• The judgment strengthens the legal position that Section 53A protection cannot be claimed without a registered agreement post-2001 amendment.
• Reaffirms the limited scope of Second Appeals, narrowing them to substantial questions that can alter the outcome of the case.
• This ruling has broad significance in land sale disputes involving oral agreements or unregistered documents, particularly in cases where statutory bars on alienation exist (such as under the 1999 Rehabilitation Act).

Also Read – Supreme Court Rules Article 20 of Concession Agreements Between Municipal Corporations in Delhi and Private Contractors Is Not a Valid Arbitration Agreement Under the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: “Article 20 Lacks the Necessary Judicial Characteristics to Be Considered Arbitration”