Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

34. A similar plea that in view of the provisions of the Urban Ceiling Act, the suit for specific performance could not have been filed was repelled by the Supreme court in the case of Van Vibhag Karamchari Griha Nirman Sahkari Sanstha Maryadit (Regd.) Vs Ramesh Chander and others11 by holding that the suit for specific performance could have easily been filed as a conditional decree can always be passed subject to requisite permissions being obtained. It was observed thus:-

"27. The aforesaid purported justification of the appellant is not tenable in law. If the alleged statutory bar referred to by the appellant stood in its way to file a suit for Specific Performance, the same would also be a bar to the suit which it had filed claiming declaration of title and injunction. In fact, a suit for Specific Performance could have been easily filed subject to the provision of Section 20 of the Ceiling Act.

28. Similar questions came up for consideration before a Full Bench of Gujarat High Court in the case of Shah Jitendra Nanalal v. Patel Lallubhai Ishverbhai [AIR 1984 Guj145]. The Full Bench held that a suit for Specific Performance could be filed despite the provisions of the Ceiling Act. A suit for Specific Performance in respect of vacant land in excess of ceiling limit can be filed and a conditional decree can be passed for Specific Performance, subject to exemption being obtained under Section 20 of the Act." (emphasis supplied)