Consolidation officers do not have right to allow specific performance of agreement of sale

  If
we consider the scheme of the Consolidation Act as a whole, it allows the consolidation officer to consolidate
the fragments either by way of exchange or for consideration. The scheme, however, nowhere authorises the
consolidation officer to declare title of a particular land. He cannot without following due procedure say that
land of A shall be land belonging to B. In this matter, it is not the case of either party that the portion of 2
acres 3 gunthas land in dispute was a fragment and, therefore, it was merged in any the property belonging to
the defendant. That portion of 2 acres 3 gunthas was given separate Gat number and such act alone will 
not divest the plaintiff of his ownership. Under the scheme of the Act it does not appear that officers or
authorities under the Act have power to vest title of disputed land in respondent-defendant though he was
holding it under agreement of sale and his title has not perfected by execution of sale deed in his favour. It is
not the case that any other land of defendant was given to the plaintiff in exchange of the said portion of two
acres. The consolidation officers do not have right to allow specific performance of agreement of sale and
declare intending purchaser to be the owner. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, second substantial
question of law will have to be and is accordingly answered in the negative.(1) Motilal Balaram Rajput (Son vs -E. Smt. Zumkabai Bhavsingh ... on 29 August, 2009

Bombay High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO.100 OF 1990
Balaram s/o Dayaram (deceased)



01. This second appeal is preferred by original plaintiffs whose suit for possession of 2 acres land out of
survey No.10/2 and mesne profit bearing Regular Civil Suit No.157 of 1977 though decreed by learned Joint
Civil Judge, Junior Division, Kannad, on 3
5.8.1988 said judgment and decree is reversed by learned II Additional District Judge, Aurangabad in Regular
Civil Appeal No.193 of 1988 decided on 17.1.1990.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1152886/
2
(1) Motilal Balaram Rajput (Son vs -E. Smt. Zumkabai Bhavsingh ... on 29 August, 2009
02. It is necessary to refer to original pleadings of the parties and decisions of the courts before we come to
the substantial questions of law which arise in this second appeal.
03. Original Plaintiff Balaram s/o Dayaram filed suit for possession of 2 acres of land out of survey No.10/2
totally admeausring 8 acres 2 gunthas, and for mesne profit for past three years alleging that
respondent-defendant had no concern with the eastern side 2 acres 3 gunthas land out of said survey No.10/2
situated at Nachanwel, Taluka Kannad, District Aurangabad and the defendant made encroachment over the
said portion of 2 acres 3 gunthas land and in spite of repeated demands, he did not remove the encroachment.
In these circumstances, suit is filed for possession on title with past mesne profit.
04. The defendant-respondent appeared in the suit and filed his written statement at Exh.10 and 4
stated therein that the plaintiff is owner of only 6 acres land out of survey No.10/2. On the eastern side of the
plaintiff's land, there is a river and thus alluvial land was formed. One Gendabai had illegally taken possession
of the said alluvial land which was 2 acres 3 gunthas and the plaintiff being uncle of the defendant, the
defendant helped the plaintiff monetarily in fighting the litigation against the said Gendabai and ultimately
plaintiff succeeded in getting possession of the said alluvial land. Thereafter, the plaintiff executed agreement
of sale in respect of the said 2 acres 3 gunthas land after reserving his right in mango trees in that land. The
sale was for Rs.236.50 paisa. The agreement was executed on 9.1.1953 and on the same day entire amount
was received by the plaintiff and the defendant was put in possession of 2 acres 3 gunthas land and since then
he has been in possession of that land. It is further stated in paragraph 4 of the written statement that the
plaintiff never demanded possession from the defendant. As per the consolidation scheme, the portion of 2
acres 3 gunthas land was entered into the name of the defendant. In paragraph 8 of the written statement, it is
further stated that since the possession of the defendant-respondent is on the basis 5
of agreement of sale, he is entitled to protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act ("T.P.
Act" for the sake of brevity). In the circumstances,defendant sought dismissal of the suit.
05. With above pleadings, the parties contested the suit. The learned trial judge framed issues at Exh.29. He
came to the conclusion that there was no agreement of sale. The defendant had encroached upon the portion of
2 acres 3 gunthas land of the plaintiff and had refused to remove the encroachment and deliver possession to
the plaintiff and, therefore, plaintiff is entitled to recovery of possession and mesne profits. While answering
issue No.6, which is regarding contention in paragraph 2 of written statement which describes as to how
defendant came into possession of the said portion of 2 acres 3 gunthas, it is held that the defendant has
proved the allegation made by him in paragraph 2 of his written statement. In other words, the contention
regarding formation of alluvial land, encroachment thereon by Gendabai, litigation between plaintiff and said
Gendabai and defendant providing finance to the plaintiff for litigation with Gendabai and thereafter Plaintiff
entering into agreement for sale with 6
defendant for Rs.236.50 paisa and defendant being put into possession of agreement for sale executed on that
day, have been held to be proved. But, the court observed in paragraph 27 of its judgment, relying upon the
case of
Baruna Giri and Others vs. Rajkishore Giri and others AIR 1983 Orisa, 107 that the respondent- defendant
failed to prove his readiness and willingness to perform his part of the contract inasmuch as he has not served
draft of the sale deed on the plaintiff-appellant and did not call upon the plaintiff to execute the sale deed. I
may quote paragraph 14 of the said judgment in the case of Baruna Giri, which is relied upon by the Trial
Court. "14. No doubt the entire consideration had been paid, but the next step in the performance of the
contract was the execution of the sale deed. It was the duty of the defendants to propose a proper draft of the
sale deed and submit it to the plaintiff as contemplated under S. 55(1) (d) of the T.P. Act. Under the
provisions of S. 29 of the Stamp Act the expenses for the sale deed were to be borne by the purchaser. Until
the defendant paid the money for the 7
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1152886/
3
(1) Motilal Balaram Rajput (Son vs -E. Smt. Zumkabai Bhavsingh ... on 29 August, 2009
stamp duty, the sale-deed could not be executed. By virtue of the combined effect of S.55 (1) (d), T.P. Act and
Section 29(c), Stamp Act it was the duty of the defendants to propose a draft of the sale deed and to express
their readiness and willingness to pay the money and to call upon the plaintiffs to execute the sale-deed-See
ILR (1975) Cut 993 at page 998, Bhimasen Mohapatra v. Bhabani Mahapatrani. In paragraph 14 of the written
statement it was stated as follows:-
".....But as the executants of the agreement for sale were residing in the District of Singhbhum and as well all
of them were not available at a time the registered sale deed could not be executed by them and as the land
remained in possession of Chandramohan and the members of his family no required steps were taken for a
registered sale deed......."
This shows that instead of complying with the requirements of S.55 (1) (d) of the 8
T.P. Act and S.29(c) of the Stamp Act, the defendants remained contented with possession of the land. Had it
really been a fact that the defendants were ready and willing to perform their part of the contract, instead of
sitting quiet for such a long time they would have sent a written notice calling upon the plaintiffs to execute
the sale deed. Their failure to send such a notice shows that they were not ready and willing to perform their
part of the contract. We accordingly hold that the defendants are not entitled to the benefit of S.53-A,
T.P.Act."
The learned trial judge in paragraph 30 of the impugned judgment came to the conclusion that in the
circumstances the defendant-respondent is not entitled to protection of Section 53-A of the T.P. Act.
06. The First Appellate Court also framed points for determination. After referring to the judgment of Orisa
High Court and pleadings of the parties, the first appellate court relied upon the cases of Chamanlal vs. Smt.
Surindenr Kumar AIR 1983 9
P. & H. 323 and Charmain v. Merchandise and ors AIR 1983 Firsthand 144 and ultimately in paragraph 18
held that the plaintiff was unable to claim possession as there is bar of Section 53-A of the T.P. Act. The first
appellate court also held in paragraph 15 of its judgment that the consolidation scheme was implemented at
village Nachanwel and the two acres 3 gunthas land of which possession is claimed was given separate block
number. The land which is admittedly in possession of the plaintiff ad measuring 6 acres was given another
block number. Thus there is bar of Section 36 of the The Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and
Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Consolidation Act").
07. This second appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law which are raised in ground Nos. 3 to 15 as
per the order dated 1.3.1990 and as observed in the order dated 21.8.2009, the substantial questions of law, in
fact, which arise in this matter are as follows and the parties have extensively argued on the said substantial
questions of law.
10
(1) Whether the defendant-respondent is entitled to protection of possession under the doctrine of "part
performance" under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act."
(2) Whether the implementation of the consolidation scheme will dis-entitle the plaintiff from claiming
possession?
Substantial question of law No.1
.
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1152886/
4
(1) Motilal Balaram Rajput (Son vs -E. Smt. Zumkabai Bhavsingh ... on 29 August, 2009
08. Section 53-A of the T.P.Act reads as follows;"53-A.
Part performance.- Where any person contracts to transfer for consideration any immovable property by
writing signed by him or on his behalf from which the terms necessary to constitute the transfer can be
ascertained with reasonable certainty;
and the transferee has, in part performance of the contract, taken possession of the property or any part
thereof, or the transferee, being already in possession, continues in possession in part performance of the
contract and has done some act in furtherance of the contract; 11
and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract, then, notwithstanding that
[***] where there is an instrument of transfer, that the transfer has not been completed in the manner
prescribed therefor by the law for the time being in force, the transferor or any person claiming under him
shall be debarred from enforcing against the transferee and persons claiming under him any right in respect of
the property of which the transferee has taken or continued in possession, other than a right expressly
provided by the terms of the contract.
Provided that nothing in this section shall affect the right of a transferee for consideration who has has no
notice of the contract or of the part performance thereof."
09. Here, the main argument advanced on behalf of the parties revolves around paragraph 3 of Section 12
53-A which is "and the transferee has performed or is willing to perform his part of the contract" and it is
these words which are sought to be interpreted in different ways by learned counsel for the parties.
10. Shir P.B.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent, produced a printed copy of judgment/order of the
Supreme Court in the case of RajKishore Giri and ors. vs. Purendra Giri and Ors decided on 26.9.1996. He
also submitted that we get reference to this judgment in 1997 (1) Orisa L.R.1 (SC) to which reference is also
made in AIR Publication of Supreme Court Millennium 1950-2050 (Vo.16) page 166. The Supreme Court has
reversed the finding of the Orisa High Court and held in para 3 as follows; "3. ..................................
From the records, it appears that admittedly the appellants have performed their part of the contract in
connection with the transfer which was to be made by the respondents so far the suit property is concerned.
They have paid full consideration money and the respondents had put them in possession 13
thereof which they continued to be since 1936 for about 60 years. In this background, according to us, the
High Court was not justified in decreeing the suit of the respondents. Appellants can take a good defence
under Section 53-A of the Act that they have performed their part of the agreement. In the result, the appeal is
allowed and the impugned order of the High Court is set aside."
Thus, the view taken by the Orisa High Court that it is not enough to pay entire consideration agreed upon
under the contract, but in view of Section 55(1)(d) of the T.P. Act and in view of provisions of Section 29 of
the Stamp Act, the defendant should have served a copy of the draft sale deed on the respondent- plaintiff and
they should have sent a notice showing their readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract,
was not endorsed by the Supreme Court.
11. Shri S.S.Deo, learned Advocate for the appellants also cited the case of A. Lewis v. M.T. Ramamurthy
AIR 2008 SC 493. In that case, it is 14
observed that the benefit of provisions under Section 53-A of the T.P. Act is not available to transferee who
remains passive. The defendants claiming to have been in possession in part performance of earlier agreement
of sale but not intimating their intention to perform their part of the contract. In the facts of the said case, the
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1152886/
5
(1) Motilal Balaram Rajput (Son vs -E. Smt. Zumkabai Bhavsingh ... on 29 August, 2009
owner of the property had sold it to another person by a registered sale deed and thereafter the plaintiff came
to the court, saying that the previous owner had executed an agreement of sale in her favour prior to the sale
deed. The court held that he should have approached the court earlier. In the facts of that case, it is held that
the plaintiff was not entitled to claim protection. It was specifically observed in paragraph 6 that the transferee
had just kept quiet and remained passive without taking any effective steps. As para 3 of the said judgment
discloses, out of total agreed consideration of Rs.14,000/=, Rs.10,000/= were paid.
12. Learned counsel for the appellants also relied upon the judgment of our High Court in Attaur Raheman vs.
Hari Peeraji 2008 (2) Mh.L.J. 633, and more particularly on para 13 of the judgment which says that no
person can pass tittle which he himself 15
does not possess or own. In that case, it was held that Piraji was not owner of the property and, therefore,
there was no cause for him to execute agreement of sale in relation to the suit property in favour of the
defendant. So, in the facts of that case, the defence of Section 53-A of the T.P. Act was not accepted.
13. If we consider agreement of sale in the present matter, it is clear that the same was executed on 9.1.1953.
The Plaintiff had executed it in favour of the defendant. There is a reference to 2 acres of alluvial land
regarding which there was dispute between Gendabai and plaintiff. Gendabai had taken over possession of
said alluvial land of 2 acres and after litigating with Gendabai, plaintiff got possession of that portion of 2
acres 3 gunthas and thereafter by the agreement executed on 9.1.1953, the plaintiff agreed to sell the said 2
acres 3 gunthas land to respondent-defendant for Rs.236.50 ps. and has stated that he had received money in
cash and handed over possession of the land to the defendant. It was further stated that even though the land
was agreed to sold, mango trees therein would continue to be enjoyed by the plaintiff. It does not appear from
this 16
agreement that the defendant was expected to do any further part of the contract. If we consider paragraph 3 of
Section 53-A of the T.P. Act it speaks of two eventualities, namely,(i) "and the transferee has performed his
part of the contract", and (ii) "or is willing to perform his part of the contract".
14. In the circumstances, in my opinion, it cannot be said that the present defendant has not performed his part
of the contract as nothing has remained to be done by him. Para 2 of the written statement clearly shows that
all necessary pleadings were made in the written statement. Protection under Section 53-A of the T.P.Act is
specifically claimed in para. 8 of the written statement. Thus, there were pleadings and entire part of the
contract was performed by respondent-defendant. Substantial question of law No.1 will, therefore, have to be
and is accordingly answered in the affirmative. Substantial question of law No.2.
15. It is submitted before me by learned Advocate Shri P.B.Patil for the respondent that in the consolidation
scheme that was finalised in 1976, two 17
separate numbers were given to the two lands, namely, portion of 6 acres admittedly possessed and owned by
the plaintiff was given block No.46; and the 2 acres portion which was in possession of the defendant was
given block No.47 and the consolidation scheme had attained finality and, therefore, the plaintiff is not
entitled to claim possession. Advocate Shri Patil relied upon the case of Yeshwant Ramchandra Dhumal v.
Shankar Maruti Dhumal AIR 2001 Bombay 384. In that case, after referring to Section 36(A) and Section
21(3) of the Consolidation Act, it is observed that the allotment of land was made to two persons and,
therefore, the question arose who was entitled to possession of the same. Since the allotment was made under
the consolidation scheme, the question as to which of the two allottees should be in possession of the land was
to be decided by the Consolidation Officer under Section 21(3) of the Consolidation Act and under these
circumstances it is held that the civil court had no jurisdiction and that there is a bar under Section 36(A) to
the jurisdiction of the Civil Court. If we consider the provisions of Section 36(A) and 36(B) of the
Consolidation Act, those read: 18
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/1152886/
6
(1) Motilal Balaram Rajput (Son vs -E. Smt. Zumkabai Bhavsingh ... on 29 August, 2009
"36A. (1) No Civil Court or Mamlatdar's Court shall have jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any
question which is by or under this Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the State Government or
any officer or authority. (2). No order of the State Government or any such officer or authority made under
this Act shall be questioned in any Civil, Criminal or Mamlatdar's Court.
36B. (1) If any suit instituted in any Civil Court or Mamlatdar's Court involved any issues which are required
to be settled, decided or dealt with by any authority competent to settle, decide or deal with such issues under
this Act (hereinafter referred to as the "competent authority") the Civil Court or Mamlatdar's Court shall stay
the suit and refer such issues to such competent authority for determination.
(2) On receipt of such reference from the Civil Court or Mamlatdar's Court, the 19
competent authority shall deal with and decide such issues in accordance with the provisions of this Act and
shall communicate its decision to the Civil Court or Mamlatdar's Court and such Court shall thereupon
dispose of the suit in accordance with the procedure applicable thereto.
16. So, what Civil Court was prevented from are deciding are questions which have to be settled, decided or
dealt with by the officers or authorities constituted under the Consolidation Act or by the State Government. If
we consider the scheme of the Consolidation Act as a whole, it allows the consolidation officer to consolidate
the fragments either by way of exchange or for consideration. The scheme, however, nowhere authorises the
consolidation officer to declare title of a particular land. He cannot without following due procedure say that
land of A shall be land belonging to B. In this matter, it is not the case of either party that the portion of 2
acres 3 gunthas land in dispute was a fragment and, therefore, it was merged in any the property belonging to
the defendant. That portion of 2 acres 3 gunthas was given separate Gat number and such act alone will 
not divest the plaintiff of his ownership. Under the scheme of the Act it does not appear that officers or
authorities under the Act have power to vest title of disputed land in respondent-defendant though he was
holding it under agreement of sale and his title has not perfected by execution of sale deed in his favour. It is
not the case that any other land of defendant was given to the plaintiff in exchange of the said portion of two
acres. The consolidation officers do not have right to allow specific performance of agreement of sale and
declare intending purchaser to be the owner. In this view of the matter, in my opinion, second substantial
question of law will have to be and is accordingly answered in the negative.
17. In the result, this court has come to the conclusion that the defendant-respondent is entitled to protection
of his possession in view of doctrine of "part performance" and, therefore, this second appeal by plaintiff
needs to be dismissed. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.
(P.R.BORKAR, J.) 

Print Page