sa132.14
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Second Appeal No. 226 of 2014
Bapurao son of Shivram Pande,
aged about 59 years,
occupation - Agriculturist,
resident of Brahmanwada [E],
Tq. Ner, Distt. Yavatmal. ..... Appellant.
ig Versus
Sahadeo Shankarrao Adkine,
aged about 54 years,
occupation Agriculturist,
resident of Brahmanwada [E],
Tq. Ner, Distt. Yavatmal. ..... Respondent.
*****
Mr. Kukday, Adv., holding for Mr. H.R. Dhumale, Adv., for the
appellant.
Mr. Dahat, Adv., holding for Mr. J.B. Kasat, Adv., for respondent
sole.
*****
CORAM : A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.
Date : 25th February, 2016
ORAL JUDGMENT:
::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:37:25 :::
sa132.14
2
01. Heard. Admit. Taken up for final disposal in view of the
short controversy involved. Learned Adv. Mr. Dahat holding for Adv.
Mr. J.B. Kasat waives service for the respondent sole.
02. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the record, including the evidence and documents, I frame the following Substantial Question of Law:-
Whether the Lower Appellate Court committed a serious error in law in ignoring the Sale Receipt [Exh.19] and evidence of the plaintiff and the admission by the defendant about execution of Exh.19 and his failure to prove that Exh.19 was forged and in the wake of Sub-Section (2) of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963? .... Yes.
What order? .... Second
Appeal is allowed.
03. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the rival parties and upon perusal of the impugned Judgment and the reasons recorded ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:37:25 ::: sa132.14 3 therein, I find that the appellant, plaintiff, claimed to have purchased a pair of bullocks for Rs. 10,000/- from the respondent, defendant, under Receipt [Exh.19] and that thereafter the bullocks were forcibly removed from his possession and that is why the suit was brought for recovery of possession of the bullocks worth Rs. 10,000/-. Now, Mr. Kukday, learned counsel for the appellant, informs that out of two, one bullock died.
Mr. Dahat, learned counsel for the respondent, defendant, sought adjournment; but I have refused adjournment looking to the controversy involved. Thereafter I have heard the learned counsel for the rival parties and perused the reasons given by the Lower Appellate Court. The Lower Appellate Court has given two reasons for reversing the judgment of the Trial Court. The first reason is that though the plaintiff examined himself to prove the Receipt [Exh.19], he did not examine a Panch witness thereon. This reason, according to me, is absurd. When the testimony of the plaintiff was believable about execution of Exh.19, there is no requirement in law for examination of a Panch witness on Exh.19. The next reason is that the plaintiff did not mutate the fact about the purchase of bullocks in the Gram Panchayat record, which reason is absurd. Further reason is that the plaintiff did not obtain a separate receipt for payment of Rs.
10,000/-, when, as a matter of fact, Exh.19 mentions about it. Above all, the Lower Appellate Court added to the confusion by holding that it ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:37:25 ::: sa132.14 4 was the duty of the plaintiff to enroll the transaction about the purchase of bullocks by him from the respondent, defendant, with the concerned Agricultural Produce Market Committee. Sub-section (2) of Section 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, reads thus:-
"6. Regulation of marketing of agricultural produce.
(1) .......
(2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to
sales by retail; sales by an agriculturist who sells his own produce; nor to sales to by a person where he himself sells to another who buys for his personal consumption or the consumption of any member of his family."
04. Section 6 of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Development & Regulation) Act, 1963, is regarding regulation of marketing of agricultural produce. There is no doubt that bullocks have been held to be an agricultural produce and there is a requirement of license for sale and purchase of bullocks. It is, perhaps, in this context the Lower Appellate Court stated that this transaction should have been mutated in the record of Agricultural Produce Market Committee. Sub-section (2) of Section 6, however, in clear terms with a Non Obstante clause wipes out such transaction between the two individuals, since regulation of marketing of agricultural produce applies when there is a regular marketing of the bullocks in the cattle ::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:37:25 ::: sa132.14 5 market under the jurisdiction of Agricultural Produce Market Committee. That is why Sub-section (2) of Section 6 specifically excludes such type of transactions, i.e., the individual farmers. Thus, in total ignorance of law, the Lower Appellate Court has reversed the finding of the Trial Court which is wholly illegal. In the result, the Substantial Question of Law is answered in the affirmative. Hence the following order:-
ig ORDER
[a] Second Appeal No. 226 of 2014 is allowed.
[b] The Judgment and Decree dated 01st December,
2012 passed by learned Ad Hoc District Judge -2, Yavatmal, in Regular Civil Appeal No. 50 of 2008 is set aside and the Judgment and Decree dated 10th July, 2008 passed by learned Joint Civil Judge [Junior Division], Ner, in Regular Civil Suit No. 53 of 2006 is restored.
[c] No costs.
Judge
-0-0-0-0-
|hedau|
::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:37:25 :::
sa132.14
6
::: Uploaded on - 29/02/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 31/07/2016 06:37:25 :::