BABASAHEB DHONDIBA KUTE Vs. RADHU VITHOBA BARDE

Advertisements

INTRODUCTION

The case titled “Babasaheb Dhondiba Kute vs. Radhu Vithoba Barde” reached the Supreme Court following appeals against decisions made by lower courts. The origins of the dispute trace back to an agreement to sell land, signed between the parties on July 31, 2001. According to the agreement, the defendant (a tribal landowner) agreed to sell land to the plaintiff for Rs. 225,000, of which Rs. 220,000 had already been paid. However, the seller failed to execute the sale deed, prompting the buyer to seek legal recourse for specific performance – a legal mechanism that compels the completion of a contract. The trial court, followed by the appellate courts, denied specific performance but allowed for the refund of the advance payment with interest. Central to the dispute was the interpretation of Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, concerning the transfer of tribal lands to non-tribals, and Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates the registration of certain documents including land sale deeds.

FACTS OF THE CASE

1. The case of Babasaheb Dhondiba Kute Vs. Radhu Vithoba Barde was heard by the Supreme Court of India on 15th February 20241. The appellant, Babasaheb Dhondiba Kute, and the respondent, Radhu Vithoba Barde, entered into an agreement to sell on 31st July 2001.
2.  Under this agreement, the respondent agreed to sell his land of 80R situated at Block No.41/1, Mandve (Bk), Tq. Sangamner to the appellant for a total consideration of Rs.2,25,000.
3.  An advance amount of Rs.1,55,000 was paid by the appellant to the respondent on the said date. Thereafter possession was stated to have been given in the year 2003 by the defendant to the plaintiff.
4.  On 10.01.2003, the plaintiff paid an additional consideration of Rs.65,000/- and thus out of a total consideration of Rs.2,25,000/-, an amount of Rs.2,20,000/- was paid. Since the defendant did not perform his part of the contract to execute the sale deed, the plaintiff filed Special Civil Suit no.11 of 2005 before the concerned trial Court seeking the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell and in the alternative, for refund of the advance sale consideration / earnest money of Rs.2,20,000/- along with interest @ 6% p.a.
5.  The trial court framed the issues for its consideration and ultimately refused the decree of specific performance and granted the alternative relief of refund of Rs.2,20,000/- with interest 6% p.a. 
6. Being aggrieved by the denial of the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell, the plaintiff preferred his appeal before the First Appellate Court.

ISSUE

1. Whether a decree for specific performance of land to be transferred from tribal to non-tribal can be granted subject to obtaining permission u/s 36A of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code?
2. Whether a decree for specific performance of land to be transferred from tribal to non-tribal can be granted subject to obtaining permission u/s 36A of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code?

APPELLANT`S ARGUMENTS

The appellant’s arguments were focused on challenging the interpretation of Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. The counsel for the appellant argued that the High Court erred in its interpretation that Section 36A imposed a total bar on the transfer of land from a tribal to a non-tribal without prior sanction. The appellant contended that the agreement to sell and the subsequent possession of the land did not constitute a complete transfer and thus should not fall under the restrictions of Section 36A. They maintained that the requirement for prior sanction should only apply at the time of actual conveyance, i.e., the registration of the sale deed.

RESPONDENT`S ARGUMENTS

The respondent contended that the section not only refers to the sale, gift, exchange, mortgage, lease but also includes ‘or otherwise’ which would cover the agreement to sell and the subsequent possession handed over to the plaintiff. The respondent supported the judgment, arguing that the transfer of land from a tribal to a non-tribal without the permission of the Collector is prohibited, aligning with the government’s policy to protect the interests of weaker sections of society123. The respondent’s stance was that the law aims to prevent the exploitation of tribal lands and ensure their economic empowerment.

 ANALYSIS

It revolves around a dispute concerning an agreement to sell land. The plaintiff, Babasaheb Dhondiba Kute, had entered into an agreement with the defendant, Radhu Vithoba Barde, for the purchase of land. Despite paying a substantial advance and taking possession of the land, the plaintiff faced issues as the defendant failed to execute the sale deed. This led to a legal battle where the trial court initially refused the decree for specific performance, which would have compelled the defendant to complete the sale as agreed, and instead granted a refund of the advance payment with interest. The plaintiff appealed this decision, and the case reached the Supreme Court of India. The crux of the matter hinged on the interpretation of Section 36A of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, which restricts the transfer of tribal land to non-tribals without prior sanction from authorities. The Supreme Court’s analysis clarified that while Section 36A imposes restrictions on the actual conveyance of land, it does not invalidate agreements to sell. The Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, granting the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell. This judgment is significant as it sets a precedent for similar land transfer disputes, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between agreements and actual conveyances in transactions involving tribal land

JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court observed that there was neither a conflict on the issue of agreement to sell between the parties nor on the consideration amount paid for the possession of land. The Referring to Section 36A of Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, the Bench opined that the only restriction under the said section is requiring the non-tribal to make an application for a previous sanction before the State Government and obtain its approval for sale before any conveyance could be made between the tribal (respondent) and non-tribal (appellant). It was also made clear by the Bench that the conveyance by way of sale would take place only at the time of registration of a sale deed in accordance with Section 17 of the Registration Act, 2008. Till then, there is no conveyance.  Hence, the Court noted that there is no bar for a tribal to enter into an agreement to sell and seeking advance sale consideration except for the requisites of Section 36A, which mandates prior approval of the State Government. Further, the Court pointed out that such a stage had not yet arisen in the instant case, as the defendant failed to perform his part of the agreement inasmuch as he did not come forward to execute the sale deed. The Bench added that if the defendant had come forward to execute the sale deed in favour of the appellant, then it would have been the duty of the appellant to have proceeded under Section 36A of the Land Revenue Code and seek the requisite permission from the Collector. The Bench in light of such observations held that on the basis of Section 36A, the trial Court, the first appellate court as well as the High Court ought to have granted the decree for specific performance to the appellant considering the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 rather than granting an alternative relief. The Court, further relied on the case of Nathulal v. Fulchand, quoted by the appellant, wherein it was held that when an agreement to sale is executed but it cannot be specifically performed without permission or sanction of any authority, the suit can be decreed and decree for specific performance can be granted subject to obtaining such permission from the competent authority. The Apex Court, therefore, decreed the suit filed by the plaintiff by holding that the plaintiff would be entitled to the relief specific performance of the agreement to sell. The Court, subject to the relief, also directed the appellant to comply with the requisites under Section 36A before seeking conveyance of the land from the respondent.

CONCLUSION

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting the decree for specific performance of the agreement to sell. The judgment clarified that Section 36A does not invalidate agreements to sell between tribes and non-tribes but regulates the actual transfer process. This case sets a precedent for similar land transfer disputes, emphasizing the importance of distinguishing between agreements and conveyances in tribal land transactions.

REFERENCE

1. https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2019/18239/18239_2019_12_7_50461_Judgement_15-Feb-2024.pdf
2. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141758724/

-Written by RIYA SHARMA 

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin