KANTILAL AMRATLAL Vs. SNEHLATA VIPINCHANDRA MEHTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A short but interesting question arises whether Civil Court can execute a sale deed on behalf of a judgment-debtor against whom a decree for specific performance has been passed in respect of a building situate within the urban agglomeration to with the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act 1976 applies in view of the prohibition contained against transfer of such properties under sec 27 on the said Act. The question arises in the following circumstances:

(2.) One Amratlal Manchharam had executed an agreement to sell a building bearing Nondh No. 1016 situate within Ward No. 2 of Sagrampura main road in the city of Surat in Favour of opponent No. 1 herein for a sum of Rs. 15 0 towards which Rs. 6 0 were paid to the vendor as earnest money. As the vendor failed to execute a deed of sale in pursuance of the said agreement opponent No. 1 was required to file the suit in the Court of Civil Judge (S. D) Surat being Special Civil Suit No. 98 of 1968 for specific performance of the said agreement. Opponent No. 3 herein was also joined as a party-diffident since the heirs of the vendor Amratlal agreed to sell the property to him Amratlal died during the tendency of the suit and therefore the present petitioners were brought on record as heirs and representatives of the original defendant said Amratlal. It appears that on October 18 1963 a compromise was effected between the parties and a decree in terms of the sail compromise was passed. The said consent decree provided that Opponent No. 1 herein who was the original plaintiff would be entitled to recover Rs. 12 500 from the defendants or would be entitled to a decree for specific performance of the said agreement to sell and accordingly on her depositing Rs. 9 0 in the Court she would be entitled to obtain a deed of conveyance from the defendants or on their default from the Commissioner to be appointed by the Court in that behalf and to obtain possession in pursuance of the said deed of conveyance. It was further provided that if the defendants pay Rs. 10 500 before December 31 1970 the decree in favour of the plaintiffs was to be marked satisfied. If the defendants failed to pay the said amount the plaintiffs had an Option to execute the money decree or the decree for specific performance as she liked. It is common ground that the defendants failed to pay the amount of is. 10 0 before December 31 1970 as stipulated in the decree with the result that the occasion for exercising the option by the plaintiffs had arisen. She accordingly applied for the execution of the decree of specific perform once by her Special Darkhast No. 15 of 1971 and prayed for direction to the defendants to execute the deed of conveyance or for appointment of Commissioner to execute the said deed if they committed a default in carrying out the directions of the Court. She had deposited Rs. 9 0 as required by the decree.

(3.) The defendants raised a number of objections against the execution of the said decree contending inter alia that the Court could not have executed the decree by executing the deed of conveyance in view of the prohibition contained on transfer of buildings situate on the land within the urban or urbanisable agglomeration without the permission of the competent authority as enjoined in sec. 27 of the Ceiling Act. The executing Court was not impressed by these objections with the result that they were rejected.