GUNVANTLAL RATANCHAND Vs. RAMESHBHAI PURSHOTTAMDAS PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard learned Counsels appearing for the parties.

(2.) The appellant herein has challenged the order dated 13.09.2000 passed by the learned Single Judge in First Appeal No. 1879 of 1984 whereby the learned Single Judge confirmed the judgement of the trial court holding that the ratio laid down by the Division Bench is not applicable looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that one of the plots was in agricultural zone governed by the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act for which the Prant Officer had refused to grant permission for sale vide Ex. 87 dated 29.08.1972.

(3.) Mr. K.S. Nanavati, learned Senior Counsel appearing with Mr. C.G. Sharma, learned advocate appearing for the appellants contended that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate that it was a properly constituted suit and the enactment of the Urban Land Ceiling Act was brought into force subsequently. He submitted that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the settled position of law which lays down that a conditional decree for specific performance subject to exemption being obtained u/s 20 of the Act is permissible and that an agreement to sell can be enforced subject to permission and/or exemption under the Urban Land Ceiling Act.