Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 21 (2.04 seconds)
Documents citing Jambu Rao Satappa Kocheri vs Neminath Appayya Hanammannaver on 10 April, 1968

P. Gopirathnam And 4 Others vs Ferrodous Estate (Pvt.) Ltd., Rep. By ... on 3 March, 1999

33. On going by the facts in the first decision reported in Jambu Rao Satappa Kocheri v. Neminath Appayya Hanamannayar, and also provisions of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, I do not think that the decision has any application to the facts of this case. Under Bombay Act, there is no prohibition for transferring land]. It is clear from paragraph 6 of the Judgment, wherein it is held thus, "......The Act has imposed no restriction upon the transfer of agricultural lands from one agriculturist to another. It is true that by S. 35 a person who comes to hold, after the appointed day, agricultural land in excess of the ceiling, the lands having been acquired either by purchase, assignment, lease, surrender or by request, the acquisition in excess of the ceiling is invalid. The expression "acquisition of such excess land shall be invalid" may appear somewhat ambiguous. But when the scheme of the Act is examined, it is clear that the Legislature has not declared the transfer or bequest invalid for S.84-C provides that the land in excess of the ceiling shall be at the disposal of the Government when an order is made by the Mamlatdar. The invalidity of the acquisition is therefore only to the extent to which the holding exceeds the ceiling prescribed by S.5, and involves the consequence that the land will vest in the Government.
Madras High Court Cites 38 - Cited by 20 - Full Document

G.T. Girish vs Y Subba Raju (D) By Lrs on 18 January, 2022

“5. Bhumidhari right is transferable and the Defendant 1 is entitled to use the land even for the purpose other than those enumerated in Section 22 if he obtains permission of the Chief Commissioner. Therefore, the agreement for transfer of land does not become invalid by itself. The Defendant 1 after obtaining the property could use it for the intended purpose on obtaining permission of the Chief Commissioner or if no such permission was obtained, he could 17 (1985) 3 SCC 128 89 use the land for the purposes authorised under Section 22 of the Act. In our opinion, the High Court went wrong in holding that the agreement was opposed to public policy or transfer under the agreement was hit by Section 23 of the Act. Support for our view is available from the decision of this Court in Jambu Rao Satappa Kocheri v. Neminath Appayya Hanammannaver [AIR 1968 SC 1358 :
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 19 - K Joseph - Full Document

P. Gopirathnam And Four Others vs Ferrodous Estate (Pvt) Ltd., Rep. By Its ... on 8 December, 1997

We are not able to read any prohibition in the said provision prohibiting the parties from entering into agreement of sale. In the decision of the Division Bench of this Court aforementioned, a view is taken that Courts in passing a decree for specific performance, cannot lend support to the parties to enforce the agreement so as to defeat the provisions of the Act, in particular Section 6 of the Act. We are unable to agree with this view. There may be a decree for specific performance subject to certain conditions, to be complied with the provisions of Section 6 itself or subject to grant of exemption and in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Jambu Rao Satappa Kocheri v. Neminath Appayya Hanamannayyar, , it cannot be said that such an agreement is hit by section 23 of the Act. Under the circumstances, we are of the view that this question is required to be decided by a larger Bench, hence we refer this case for hearing and disposal by a larger Bench including the question as we have stated above.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - S V Patil - Full Document

Manubhai Khandubhai Naik vs Sumantrai Ranchhodji Naik Since Deced. ... on 18 September, 2003

6.2. The decision of the Supreme Court in Jambu Rao Satappa v. Neminath Appayya [AIR 1968 SC 1358] was cited to point out that in context of Section 23 of the Contract Act, the Court while considering whether knowledge of a party that purchaser will be in possession of land in excess of ceiling under Section 5 of the Bombay Tenancy & Agricultural Lands Act, held in para-8 of the judgment that the Act contained no general restrictions upon such transfers and unless at the date of the acquisition, the transferee held the land in excess of the ceiling, the acquisition to the extent of the excess over the ceiling will not be invalid. It was held that the inability of the transferee to hold the land in excess of the ceiling prescribed by the statute has no effect upon the contract, or the operation of the transfer. The statutory forfeiture incurred in the event of the transferee coming to hold land in excess of the ceiling does not invalidate the transfer between the parties. It was held that contract for purchase of land entered into with the knowledge that the purchaser may hold land in excess of the ceiling is not void and enforcement thereof cannot be resisted on the ground that, if permitted, it will result in transgression of the law.
Gujarat High Court Cites 24 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Naranbhai Dahyabhai Patel And Anr. vs Suleman Isapji Dadabhai And Anr. on 26 April, 1974

If a reference is made to Section 84C it will be found that it provides for the disposal of the land, transfer or acquisition of which is invalid. It authorises the Mamlatdar to make an inquiry suo motu if he has reason to believe that transfer or acquisition of any land becomes invalid under any of the provisions of the Act. Thus this Section makes it clear that validity or invalidity of a transaction is one of the functions and duties of the Mamlatdar under the Bombay Tenancy Act. Therefore, as held by the Supreme Court in Jambu Rao Satappakocheri v. Neminath Appayya Hanafrmaya , the question about the validity or invalidity of any transfer of agricultural lands to which the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy Act apply, the jurisdiction of the Civil court is barred. This proposition is not in dispute.
Gujarat High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Iol Limited vs S.C. Prasad And Others on 4 October, 1994

In this connection, it will be appropriate to refer to the decision Jambu Rao Satappa Kocheri v. Neminath Appayya Hanamannayar, . In that case, a contract of purchase was entered into with the knowledge of the parties that the purchaser will be in possession of lands in excess of the ceiling under section 5 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The purchaser instituted proceedings in the court for a decree for specific performance of the agreement and for the possession of the land. The trial court dismissed the suit holding that the agreement if enforced would result in the transgression of the provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act. The High Court reversed the decree of the trial court and the Supreme Court upheld the decree holding that the provisions of section 23 of the Contract Act were not attracted as the consideration of the agreement was not unlawful and there was no provision in the Act which expressly or by implication forbids a contract for sale of agricultural lands. The Legislature had merely declared that the lands in excess of the ceiling shall be under the disposal of the Government. The Supreme Court further observed (at page 1360) :
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Mrs. Sushila A. Dass vs Mrs. Mary Boiger on 14 March, 1988

This decision of the Division Bench was challenged by the unsuccessful defendant before the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court has affirmed the ruling of this Court in JAMBU RAO SATAPPA KOCHERI v. NEMINATH APPAYYA HANAMANNAVAR, . The very same principle would be applicable to the interpretation of the provisions of Section 79A and 80 of the K.L.R. Act. It is for the authorities conferred with the powers under the K.L.R. Act to examine the legality of the transactions and not for the Civil Court.
Karnataka High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

S. Naganatha Ayyar And Ors. vs The Authorised Officer And Ors. on 11 December, 1970

In Satappa v. Appayya , the Supreme Court was concerned with a contract of purchase of land which the parties entered into with the full knowledge that the purchaser will be in possession of the lands in excess of his ceiling under Section 5 of Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, and they rejected a contention that the contract could not be specifically enforced as the purchaser was already owning more than the ceiling area and that by acquiring the land under the contract he would be holding far in excess of the ceiling fixed by the statute. On the question whether the enforcement of the contract would result in transgression of the provisions of the Act and whether Section 23 of the Act disabled the purchaser from enforcing the contract, the Supreme Court expressed that the contract for purchase of land entered into with the knowledge that the purchaser may hold land in excess of the ceiling is not void, and that the seller cannot resist enforcement thereof on the ground that, if permitted, it will result in transgression, of the law. In that case the Supreme Court considered the scope of Section 35 which is similar to Section 20 of the Madras Act LVIII of 1961. The Supreme Court points out that there was nothing to indicate that the Legislature has prohibited a contract to transfer land, that the inability of the transferee to hold land in excess of the ceiling prescribed by the statute has no effect upon the contract or the operation of the transfer and that the statute has only imposed a forfeiture in the event of the transferee coming to hold land in excess of the ceiling and this does not invalidate as such a transfer between the parties. The above two decisions of the Supreme Court which have been rendered under the provisions of the analogous statutes give an indication that so long as the statute does not prohibit a transfer it is not possible to declare void transactions of true and bona fide character entered into between the parties before the notified date, and that while it is the duty of the Court not to render its aid to the enforcement of transactions, which are illegal, it is at the same time incumbent that the illegality should be sufficiently proved and the facts constituting illegality duly established. As already stated even after the notified date the statute does not impose any prohibition but merely directs the Authorised Officer (1) not to take into account those transactions while fixing the ceiling area or (2) to take, away the excess, if any, over the ceiling area of the transferee. It is not possible to accept the contention advanced on behalf of the State that the intention of parties entering into the transaction is immaterial for the application of Section 22 and that even if the transaction is true and bona fide if they have the effect of defeating the provisions of the Act, they should be declared invalid.
Madras High Court Cites 60 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Canara Bank vs K.L. Rajgarhia on 12 February, 2009

55. I may at this stage notice Jambu Rao Satappa Vs. Neminath Appayya AIR 1968 SC 1358. It entailed an agreement for sale of land. The suit for specific performance was contested on the ground that if the suit was decreed it would result in the plaintiff having land in excess of the ceiling limit and thus the agreement was pleaded to be void under Section 23 of the Contract Act. The Apex Court held that neither the object of the agreement nor consideration therefor was illegal or to defeat any law, even though the statute made the acquisition of excess land to be invalid. It was further held that the object of the agreement could not be said to be to hold land in excess of ceiling. It was further held that it was open to the plaintiff to transfer the excess land or otherwise deal with the same to bring his holding within ceiling but there was nothing in the agreement, nor could it be implied from circumstances that it was the object of the parties that ceiling laws should be transgress; the mere possibility of that being the effect of agreement being so would not make the same void. Also the possibility of statutory forfeiture of excess land in the hands of plaintiff was held not to invalidate the agreement between parties.
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 3 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

Gundaji Satwaji Shinde vs Ramchandra Bhikaji Joshi on 5 December, 1978

A brief resume of the fact in Jambu Rai Satappa Kocheri v. Neminath Appayya Hanammannaver, is necessary to grasp the ratio of this decision. In a suit for specific performance the defendant contended that if the contract is enforced it would violate s. 35 of the Tenancy Act in that the plaintiff's holding after the appointed day would exceed the ceiling and the acquisition in excess of the ceiling is invalid. A contention appears to have been raised that the question whether an acquisition in excess of the ceiling would be invalid would be within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Mamlatdar under s. 70(mb) and that the Civil Court cannot decide or deal with this question and a reference ought to have been made to the Mamlatdar. Negativing this contention it was observed that the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain and decree a suit for specific performance of agreement to sell land. If upon the sale being completed it would violate some provision of the Tenancy Act an enquiry has to be made under s. 84C and s.84C provides that if an acquisition of any land is or becomes invalid under any of the provisions of the Tenancy Act, the Mamlatdar may suo motu inquire into the question and decide whether the transfer or acquisition is or is not valid. This inquiry has to be made after the acquisition of title pursuant to a decree for specific performance. It is in the context of these facts that it was held that even though civil Court has no jurisdiction to determine whether the acquisition would become invalid but there is nothing in s. 70 or any other provision of the Act which excludes the Civil Court's jurisdiction to decree specific performance of a contract to transfer land which would be anterior to the acquisition. While disposing of this contention this Court took note of the fact that the transfer may not be invalid at all because the purchaser may have already disposed of his prior holding and it was further observed that 602 when the scheme of the Act is examined it becomes clear that the legislature has not declared the transfer or acquisition invalid, for s. 84C provides that the land in excess of the ceiling shall be at the disposal of the Government when an order is made by the Mamlatdar. The invalidity of the acquisition is, therefore, only to the extent to which the holding exceeds the ceiling prescribed by law and involves the consequence that the land shall vest in the Government. lt would thus transpire that after the acquisition is completed, the question may arise whether ceiling has been exceeded and in that event the Mamlatdar in a suo motu inquiry can declare the transfer invalid to the extent the holding exceeds the ceiling. The distinguishing feature of the present case is that s. 63 bars purchase of agricultural land by one who is not an agriculturist and, therefore, the disqualification is at the threshold and unless it is crossed the Court cannot decree a suit for specific performance of contract for sale of agricultural land and in order to dispose of the contention which stands in the forefront a reference to the Mamlatdar under s. 70 read with ss. 85 and 85A is enevitable.
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 35 - D A Desai - Full Document
1   2 3 Next