Summary
A company that was not an agriculturist agreed to buy agricultural land in Himachal Pradesh on condition of obtaining State permission under Section 118 of the 1972 Act. When permission was refused, it assigned its rights to the appellant, who sued for specific performance and lost. The High Court refused to condone a 254-day delay in his first appeals, which he blamed on lack of funds for court fee. The Supreme Court upheld that refusal. A wealthy hotelier could have filed an appeal with deficient court fee and made it good under Section 149 CPC. On merits, the assignment made without the seller's consent could not support a decree and would defeat Section 118.
Issues
- Whether lack of funds to pay court fee is sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to condone a 254-day delay in filing first appeals, given Section 149 CPC.
- Whether an assignee of a non-agriculturist purchaser, who failed to obtain permission under Section 118 of the Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, can obtain specific performance of the agreement to sell agricultural land.
Provisions considered
- Section 149 CPC; Section 4, Court Fees Act, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Court Fees Act, 1870Section 149 operates as an exception to Section 4 of the Court Fees Act, so an appeal may be presented with deficient court fee and, when the deficiency is made good as allowed, it takes effect from original presentation (Mannan Lal followed); the appellant could therefore have filed in time. (¶¶ 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
- Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963A litigant seeking condonation must give a reasonable explanation for the delay, and a negligent or inactive party cannot be helped (Mahant Bikram Dass, Basawaraj); insufficient funds was no sufficient cause for an affluent businessman. (¶¶ 5, 9, 10)
- Sections 2(2) and 118, Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972No transfer of land to a non-agriculturist is valid without State permission for prescribed purposes; the provision protects small holdings and checks conversion of agricultural land, so assigning the rights to an agriculturist who would use the land for the same non-agricultural purpose defeats the Act. (¶¶ 11, 12, 17)
Held
- The High Court rightly refused to condone the delay: the only reason given was want of funds for court fee, which was insufficient for an affluent hotelier who in any event could have filed the appeal deficient in court fee and cured it under Section 149 CPC; it would have been different had he done so. (¶¶ 5, 9, 10)
- On merits, all conditions of the agreement depended on permission under Section 118, which was refused; the agreement contained no clause permitting assignment to an agriculturist and the seller's consent was not obtained, so the assignment was invalid and no decree of specific performance could be granted. (¶¶ 14, 15, 16, 17)
Result
Civil Appeal No. 716 of 2023 and the connected appeal arising from SLP (C) No. 15848 of 2019 dismissed; the High Court's order dated 17.12.2018 refusing to condone the 254-day delay in filing first appeals against the dismissal of Civil Suit Nos. 28 and 29 of 2012 upheld.