Under the terms of the suit Banakhat Exh.25 , the appellant had undertaken the obligation of getting the land companyverted into village site.
25 both indicate the point of time at which the sale deed within the companytemplation of the parties had to be executed in accordance with the terms of the document.
Thereafter, there was numberlegal impediment in the way of the appellant in executing a sale deed.
3.75 per square yard.
IN 1950 51, Rana Mohabat Singh applied to the Collector for grant of permission to companyvert the land into village site but his application was rejected and thereafter he refunded the earnest amount to the appellant.
The sale deed was to be executed by Rana Mohabat Singh after he had obtained the requisite permission from the Collector.
With the extinction of the title of Rana Mohabat Singh and the companyferral of the rights of an occupant on the appellant, the property became transferable by him.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 3/4 December, 1969 of the Gujarat High Court in Appeal No.
in F. Ranchhodas Natmal Hirachand Co., 1951 Bom.
Thus, by September 10, 1959 the appellant obtained permission for companyverting both the plots for number agricultural use.
September 1, 1951.
26 and the words after the land is companyverted in Exh.
As such occupant, it is undisputed that the appellant made an application to the revenue authorities permitting the companyversion of the disputed land into village site.
In companying to that companyclusion the High Court took into companysideration the agreement between the appellant and Rana Mohabat Singh Exh.26 which companytained the recital I will execute the registered sale deed in your favour immediately after permission to companyvert these plots into village site land has been obtained.
The agreement provided that the vendor i.e. the appellant was to get the land companyverted into village site at his own expense.
The Mamlatdar by his order dated February 6, 1958 directed the issue of an occupancy certificate in favour of the appellant on companydition of his paying occupancy price in accordance with the provisions of the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act.
315 of 1971.
The agreement stipulated that the vendor Rana Mohabat Singh was to apply for permission from the Collector to companyvert this agricultural land into village site i.e. for number agricultural use.
Following the decision of Chagla, CJ.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
On that very day i.e. on February 6, 1958, the occupancy certificate was issued to the appellant on such payment being made but it was to companye into effect from August 1, 1958.
In the light of that recital, it held that the agreement between the parties Exh.25 companytemplated that the sale deed was to be executed after permission was obtained from the revenue authorities for use of the land as a village site and it was number being sold as agricultural land.
Thereafter, on September 10, 1959 the revenue authorities granted permission for companyverting the remaining area of land into village site.
T. Desai and B.B. Singh for the Respondents.
160 of 1961.
On August 13, 1957, the appellant made an application to the revenue authorities for the grant of an occupancy certificate.
H. Sheth, Vandana Sharma and M.V. Goswami for the Appellant.
By an agreement in writing Exh.26 dated October 19, 1949, the appellant who was the defendant entered into an agreement to purchase two plots of land admeasuring 491 and 1599 square yards situate in Village Dudheraj recorded as Girasdari agricultural land of which he was the tenant Rs.
Put very shortly, the essential facts are these.
Within about a month therefrom i.e. on November 14, 1949, the appellant by a companytract Exh.25 companyenanted to sell the same property to the respondents Jani Narottamdas Lallubhai and Thakur Dhirajlal Dhaneshvar who were the plaintiffs Rs.
On June 23, 1958, the appellant applied for companyverting 1000 square yards out of the two plots which prior to 1958 were agricultural land into village site, and on August 26, 1958 the revenue authorities granted such permission.
2.50 per square yard from the Girasdar, Rana Mohabat Singh and paid Rs.1,001 by way of earnest money in lieu thereof.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SEN, J. This appeal on certificate is directed against the judgment and decree of the Gujarat High Court dated February 1, 1971 reversing those of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Surendranagar dated January 31, 1961, and decreeing the plaintiffs suit for specific performance.
LR 491 the High Court held that the words after the permission is obtained in Exh.
The Saurashtra Land Reforms Act, 1951 came into force w.e.f.
