Agreement To Sell Executed During Statutory Bar Under HP Tenancy Act Not Specifically Enforceable: High Court

The Himachal Pradesh High Court held that even though the agreement to sell was duly executed and proved, it could not be specifically enforced as it violated a statutory prohibition under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. The Court noted that the suit land was subject to a ten-year restriction on transfer from the date of conferment of proprietary rights, and since the agreement was executed within this prohibited period, it was rendered legally unenforceable.Justice Sushil Kukreja remarked that: “Copy of jamabandi, Ex. PW-1/B, demonstrates that proprietary rights… were conferred upon the defendant… as there is a note… that the suit land cannot be alienated for a period of 10 (ten) years upto 2016 in any manner, whatsoever… Since, the agreement has been executed… within a period of two years… the said agreement… being forbidden by law cannot be said to be capable of being specifically enforced.”Background: The plaintiff filed a suit seeking specific performance of an agreement dated 17.07.2008 for purchase of land, or alternatively, refund of ₹8,00,000 paid as earnest money. The plaintiff contended that the defendant agreed to sell the land for a total consideration of Rs.11,00,000/-, out of which… Rs.8,00,000/- as advance. However, the defendant cancelled the said power of attorney and did not execute the sale-deed” In response, the defendant contended that the alleged agreement of sale was forged and fabricated and that her signatures were obtained under the pretext of general power of attorney and that the documents were fabricated. The Court observed that the agreement to sell was duly proved and Witness testimonies supported the plaintiff, and the defendant admitted her signatures. Also, the defence of fraud was not substantiated. The Court found that the power of attorney was validly executed and registered. It emphasized the legal presumption in favour of registered documents and noted the absence of evidence to prove forgery.Thus, the High Court allowed the appeal and granted refund of ₹8,00,000. Case Name: Kaushalya Devi V/s Suini (since deceased through her LRs)Case No.: RFA No.234 of 2013Date of Decision: 31.03.2026 For the appellant: Mr. Anand Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Karan Sharma, Advocate.For the Respondents: Mr. Mohammad Aamir, AdvocateMr. Neeraj Sharma, Advocate vice Mr.Vipin Bhatia, AdvocateClick Here To Read/Download Order

Agreement To Sell Executed During Statutory Bar Under HP Tenancy Act Not Specifically Enforceable: High Court

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags