Atmaram S/O. Amruta Mehange vs Smt.Banarasibai W/O Nandlal ...
2016 Latest Caselaw 129 Bom

                                                                             sa.116.01
                                       1




                                                                              
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                           BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.




                                                      
                                       ...

SECOND APPEAL NO. 116 /2001

Atmaram s/o Amruta Mehange Aged about 48 years Occu: Agriculturist R/o village Jawla (Bk)

Tahsil and District: Akola. ... APPELLANT

v e r s u s

Smt. Banarasibai w/o Nandlal Agrawal

(Died ): Through Legal heirs :

       1)      Shri Sunderlal s/o Nandlal Agrawal
               Aged about 50 years, occu: Business
      


       2)      Shri Ratanlal  s/o Nandlal Agrawal
               Aged 45 years,  occu: Business
   



       3)      Shri Motilal s/o Nandlal  Agrawal,
               Aged about 40 years, occu: Business





       4)      Shri  Pawan s/o Nandlal  Agrawal,
               Aged about 38 years, occu: Business

       5)      Shri Nawal s/o Nandlal Agrawal
               Aged 36 years, occu: Transport Business





       6)      Shri Manoj  s/o Nandlal  Agrawal
               Aged 34 years, occu: Transport business

       7)      Ku.Kaushyala D/o nandlal Agrawal.
               Aged about 42 years, occu: Household

       8)      Ku.  Baby @  Laxmi D/o Nandlal Agrawal
               Aged about 39 years, occu: household





                                                                                                                    sa.116.01





                                                                                                                   
                         All the legal heirs  1 to 8  are 
                         residing  at Jaipuriya House,
                         Gandhi Chowk, Akola, Tah. & Dist.Akola....                                 RESPONDENTS




                                                                                     

...........................................................................................................................

Mr. V.M.Moon, Advocate for the appellant Mr. B.N. Mohta, Advocate for LRs of Respondent ............................................................................................................................

CORAM: A.B.CHAUDHARI, J .

                                                         DATED :     29th February, 2016




                                                                    
    ORAL  JUDGMENT:

    1.
                                         
                         Being   aggrieved   by   the   judgment   and   decree     dated   16th 

    February,   2001   in   Regular   Civil   Appeal   No.120/1999     passed   by   the 
                                        

learned 4th Additional District Judge, Akola, setting aside the judgment

and decree dated 30.3.1999 passed by 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Akola in Regular Civil Suit No. 664/1992, the present Second

Appeal was preferred by the unsuccessful original defendant.

FACTS:

2. The respondent/original plaintiff-Smt.Banarasibai

instituted a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant/original

defendant of the suit land, on 18.11.1992. In the suit, she pleaded that

she had purchased the suit field/property belonging to the appellant in

a village which was located 40 kms. away from Akola town and that

after the purchase, when her son had gone to the field on 11.10.1992,

the appellant had threatened him not to enter the field and, therefore,

sa.116.01

a notice dated 13.10.1992 (Exh.72) was issued to him. In the notice,

as well as in the suit, it was stated that the respondent/plaintiff was in

possession of the suit land for the last three years and, as such, her

possession could not be disturbed, she being lawful owner of the suit

property. The property was duly mutated in the revenue records in

her name and, thus, she prayed for permanent injunction. The

appellant having appeared, filed written statement and opposed the

suit and submitted that the appellant was having a fair price shop and

three years before the alleged sale-deed, there was a transaction of

taking loan since the appellant was in need of money for running the

shop as his crops had failed in those years. The transaction of taking

loan on interest and repaying back and again taking loan, had taken

place. Insofar as the sale deed is concerned, it was a mortgage that he

was executing the mortgage deed, but the same turned out to be the

ultimate sale deed. The sale deed was for security of loan which was

also paid by the appellant. The respondent-money lender has been

lending money on higher interest to the fair-price shopkeepers and

agriculturists and, therefore, the transaction was by way of security of

loan and not the real transaction of sale. The respondent/plaintiff

was never in possession of the suit property and in connivance with the

revenue officials, she managed to enter her name as the purchaser

sa.116.01

but possession was never given. Since she was not in possession, the

question of issuing temporary injunction did not arise. The appellant

therefore, prayed for dismissal of the suit.

The learned trial Judge dismissed the suit filed by the

respondent/plaintiff, who carried an Appeal to the District Court. The

lower Appellate Court allowed the Appeal and decreed the suit. Hence

this Second Appeal.

SUBMISSIONS :

3. In support of the Appeal, Mr.V.M.Moon, learned counsel

for the appellant vehemently argued that the transaction was out and

out transaction of loan, because the respondent was a money lender

lending money to the people on exorbitant rate of interest and it is out

out of money lending transaction only, the sale deed was executed,

on the pretext of executing a mortgage deed by way of security of loan

that was taken by the appellant. According to him, the loan was

completely repaid and sale deed was never to be acted upon and was

in fact not acted upon, inasmuch as the possession was never given to

the respondent/plaintiff who resides at Akola town, which is at a

distance of 40 kms. from the location of the field and not only that

DW 3 Rameshwar has been examined by the appellant to prove the

sa.116.01

fact that the respondent/plaintiff is a money lender and, in fact, in the

case of Rameshwar almost during the same time i.e. on 24.1.1991 six

months before the sale deed in question, Rameshwar had taken a

loan and an agreement was executed for sale of 3.59 H for

consideration of Rs. 75,000/- in favour of respondent. According to

him, Rameshwar entered the witness box and his evidence went

unchallenged on material particulars. As to business of money lending

done by the respondent/plaintiff, inviting my attention to Exh. 87,

copy of the suit being Suit No.169/1993, Mr. Moon contended that

ultimately on 2.8.1995 after Rameshwar paid the entire amount with

interest, by filing a withdrawal pursis (Exh.89) the said suit was

withdrawn, by way of out of court settlement. But then, according to

Mr. Moon, the fact that the respondent had been doing money lending

business and the sale deed in question is of the same period as in the

case of Rameshwar and, therefore, the appellant has clearly proved his

case beyond all probabilities about the money lending business of

respondent. According to Mr. Moon, the respondent never asserted

that he was agriculturist or agricultural labourer in order to purchase

the suit property and, on the contrary, her son admitted in the cross-

examination that their business was of sale of grains. Mr. Moon then

submitted that the respondent never filed any Khasra for the relevant

sa.116.01

years to show that possession was given to the respondent i.e. relevant

year 1991-92, but filed Khasra 7/12 extract of the year 1992-93

but then that was manipulated. What was relevant was the Khasra for

the year 1991-92 which is not found on record. Mr. Moon then

contended that the respondent miserably failed to prove the ownership

by providing the sale deed itself and that is finding of fact recorded

by the trial Judge and, as such, no ownership could be said to be

proved on the plaintiff by merely looking the entry 7/12 extract in the

absence of the available documentary evidence, namely, the original

sale deed which was never filed on record. What was filed was photo

copy of the alleged original sale deed. Even certified copy was not

obtained for filing in the Court for leading the secondary evidence.

Thus, the sale deed having been denied, the respondent was not the

owner of the suit field as contended by her and, therefore, the decree

could not have been passed by the lower Appellate Court. The judgment

of lower Appellate Court is clearly faulty and does not meet the

reasons recorded by the trial Judge on the aspect of ownership or

possession. The appellant therefore prays for reversal of for the

judgment of lower Appellate Court. Mr. Moon, the learned counsel

relied on the following decisions:

sa.116.01

1) AIR 1982 SC 20 : Smt. Gangabai vs.Smt.Chhabubai

2) AIR 1993 SC 398 : Bhagwan Sharma vs. S,t/Bani Ghosh

3) AIR 1994 SC 762 : Mahendra Singh vs. Jagbir Singh

4. Per contra, Mr. B.N.Mohta, learned counsel for the

respondent/plaintiff vehemently opposed the Appeal and supported the

impugned judgment and order made by the lower Appellate Court. Mr.

Mohta, contended that though it is true that the original document of

sale deed was not brought on record and consequently it could be

said that the sale transaction was proved, nevertheless the possession

was proved by the respondent/plaintiff and, therefore, there can be a

decree for protecting possession of plaintiff with the aid of Section 53A

of the Transfer of Property Act, by treating the sale deed as agreement

of sale, that too registered. Mr. Mohta, fairly conceded that the

original sale deed as well as the certified copy was not produced

before the Court in order to prove the ownership. But then the fact

remains that the respondent/plaintiff paid valuable consideration for

transfer of the suit property and the document in the form of sale deed

was executed in favour of respondent /plaintiff and the revenue record

clearly shows possession of the respondent/plaintiff throughout. He

then contended that at the appellate stage 7/12 extract was filed on

sa.116.01

record, but then fairly stated that no application was made for filing

additional evidence before the Appellate Court. Nevertheless, according

to him, the 7/12 extract or the Government records show

consistently the respondent in possession right after 1992-93. He

therefore, contended that the lower Appellate Court's judgment need

not be interfered with. He contended that there is no evidence that the

respondent was doing money lending business, as alleged. A single and

solitary incident brought through Rameshwar about the money lending

transaction as alleged, is not ipso facto proof of the fact that the

transaction of sale deed in question was a money lending transaction.

The theory of mortgage has not been proved by the appellant or that the

consideration in the sale deed was towards security for loan. He,

therefore, contended that there is no substantial question of law that is

required to be decided and, therefore, the Appeal deserves to be

dismissed. In the alternative, Mr.Mohta contended that since another

suit is pending before the trial judge regarding partition etc. there is no

need to record a finding about the nature of transaction. Mr. Mohta

cited the following decision :-

1) AIR 1999 SC 2203 : Brij Raj singh (Dead) by Lrs vs. Sewak Ram

2) Judgment in W.P. No. 6330/2006 of Bombay High Court

sa.116.01

5. Heard learned counsel for the rival parties at length. Seen

the reasons recorded by the courts below. This Court had admitted

this Appeal on 24.6.2004 on the following substantial questions of

law.

(1) Whether Lower Appellate Court framed the proper

points for determination as provided under order 41 Rule 31

of the Civil Procedure Code?

(2) Whether the defendant is precluded from leading oral evidence in support of his contention that the sale deed is in question was sham and bogus and it is a money lending

transaction to security of loan and it was not to be acted upon by the parties under Section 54 of the Transfer of

Property Act and under Section 92 of Evidence Act?

(3) Whether the finding of fact recorded by the Lower Appellate Court which was the final Court of fact were vitiated in the eye of law on account of non-consideration of admissible evidence of vital nature under Section 103 (b) of

Civil Procedure Code?

6. In supersession thereof, I frame the following substantial

questions of law :

sa.116.01

1) Whether the respondent/plaintiff having failed to produce and prove the primary evidence, namely,

the sale deed in original, on which the suit was filed, the plaintiff could ever be termed as the owner of the suit property under the sale deed? ..No

2) Whether the appellant/defendant was entitled to plead and prove that the transaction in the alleged

sale deed was not intended to be acted upon at all

between the parties and the document of sale deed being sham and bogus was not admissible in evidence

and particularly that the transaction was one of money lending, more so in the light of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

Gangabai vs. Chhabubai: AIR 1982 SC 20.? ..Yes.

3) Whether the lower Appellate Court erred in reverting the finding of fact arrived at by the trial

Judge that the plaintiff was never placed in possession and the possession was never proved, as such to make any decree for permanent injunction ? .. Yes.

             What order ?                    Second Appeal is allowed. 



    CONSIDERATION:

7. At the outset, there should not be any difficulty in

sa.116.01

answering the Question No.1 because, in fairness, Mr. Mohta, learned

counsel for the respondent conceded and the record also shows that

though the original sale deed could be filed on record and proved, the

the same was never brought before the Court to prove the ownership of

respondent/plaintiff, for which no explanation is forthcoming. The

terra firma of the case of respondent/plaintiff was that sale deed was

of 25.6.1991 itself. The defendant denied that it conveyed the suit

property as the transaction was in the nature of security for loan. That

is the important reason why the original sale deed was required to be

placed before the Court for proving the ownership and delivery of

possession. That apart, the plaintiff even did not produce certified

copy of the original sale deed on record, in order to have the secondary

evidence before the Court but what was produced was photo copy of

the original alleged sale deed which was not exhibited or admitted in

evidence, but given article. Therefore, the requirement of proof as

admissible evidence is lacking in this case and the plaintiff miserably

failed to prove that she became the owner by virtue of the sale deed

dated 25.6.1991. The plaintiff having thus failed to produce the sale

deed, it could not consequently be proved that there was any recital in

the same about the delivery of possession. Therefore the document,

namely, the sale-deed, would have proved the ownership as well as

sa.116.01

title and possession of the respondent/plaintiff; but the plaintiff chose

to keep it away from the Court though it was possible to bring and

prove the same. The question No.1 is therefore answered in the

negative.

8. As regards Question No.2, I have perused the plaint as

well as written statement carefully. The averments in the plaint is

that the sale deed was executed on 25.6.1991 and the plaintiff was in

possession for last three years before filing of the suit. The suit was

filed because there was a threat imparted on 3.11.1992 and after

the legal notice (Exh.72) was issued about it. The notice (Exh.72)

dated 13.10.1992 also shows that the respondent/plaintiff was in

possession for the last three years. The averment in the notice Exh.72

as well as in the suit that was filed on 18.11.1992 that the respondent

was in possession for the last three years, is clearly false because the

sale deed is said to be the date 25.6.1991 and the suit was instituted

on 18.11.1992 i.e. after one year and five months. It is difficult to

countenance as to how the plaintiff came in possession three years prior

to filing of the suit or notice Exh.72. It is then seen in the evidence

that the suit property was situated at a distance of 40 kms away from

Akola town where the respondent/plaintiff resides and that she is a

sa.116.01

money lender lending money at high rate of interest, to farmers and

needy people without any money lending licence. It is then stated in

the written statement that possession was never handed over though the

sale deed was executed, obviously because the transaction was of money

lending. The plaint averments were never amended or any pleadings

contrary to the defence were brought. The sale deed not being brought

on record, whether the possession was delivered on the same day of the

sale deed or earlier or thereafter is not to be seen anywhere on the

record and that could be best piece of documentary evidence to find out

whether the possession was really given or not. That apart, the sale

deed is said to be dated 25.6.1991 and the agricultural year would

end by April 1992 and if the possession was really handed over at the

time of sale deed on 25.6.1991, the entry for the agricultural year

1991 -92 must show the possession of the respondent/plaintiff; but that

is not so. There is no document whatsoever on record to show the

possession of the respondent/plaintiff for the agricultural year 1991-92

but there is a document on record i.e. 7/12 extract showing her

possession for the agricultural year 1992-93. In other words, the

contention that the possession was given at the time of sale deed on

25.6.1991 itself, must be held to be clearly wrong. There is, therefore,

reason to hold that the alleged sale deed was executed but possession

sa.116.01

was not handed over and it was the appellant/defendant who remained

in possession. The only reason for not delivering the possession upon

execution of the alleged sale deed, appears to be probable nature of the

transaction namely, money lending transaction. The appellant had led

his evidence and evidence of one Rameshwar (DW 3) as his witness,

in order to support the theory that the respondent was indulging in

money lending transaction without licence and was taking documents

accordingly from farmers or others. It would be appropriate to quote

the evidence of Rameshwar (DW 3) for defendant, the relevant portion

of which reads thus :

"1. I know the plaintiff and defendant. I know all

the sons of the plaintiff. Out of those sons - Ratanseth is sitting in the court hall. I do cultivation work. Similarly I

have the licence of Fair Price shop and I run the said shop. I used to take money on interest from the plaintiff and her sons. The rate of interest of the loan is Rs.10/- per hundred per month. About ten years ago, I had borrowed an amount

of Rs.10,000/- from the plaintiff. They had taken my signatures on the blank stamp paper and executed the earnest note and submitted the same before the Civil Judge, Senior Division. Compromise has taken place in the said suit. I paid Rs. 18,000/- to the plaintiff and settled the matter. In that earnest note, my agricultural land admeasuring 9 acres

sa.116.01

was got written. The said transaction between myself and the plaintiff was the part of money lending business. I do

not know what business Banarasibai and her son is doing at this time. But during that period they were giving money on interest.

2. About 7 to 8 years ago, there was some money transactions between the defendant and Banarasibai over

the Fair price Shop. Atmaram was running a Fair Price

Shop. Since Atmaram was running a Fair Price Shop, I know him. This transaction with Atmaram was similar to

that of the transaction with me.

3. Banarasibai had given the money on interest to

1) Gavai of village Bizora; 2) Gavai from village Sukoda; 3)

Keshao Dhomle from village Koradi and 4) Jaholkar from village Mangul."

From the perusal of examination-in-chief of Rameshwar

(DW 3), it clearly appears that the respondent/plaintiff was giving

money to the needy persons on interest and was thus doing money

lending business without license. I have carefully gone through the

cross-examination of this witness and what I find is that the entire

material evidence about the activity of respondent/plaintiff of money

lending business has not been put to challenge at all and there is a

sa.116.01

slipshod cross-examination and the material portion has not been

touched of his cross-examination. It is important to note that this

evidence of Rameshwar is supported and Documents Exhs. 87, 88 and

89 which was pursis that was filed after the compromise. It is then

important to note that the transaction with Rameshwar was said to

have taken place on 24.1.1991 in respect of money lending; while

transaction in question of sale deed is of the date 25.6.1991 i.e.

difference of only five months. It is thus clear that the evidence led by

the appellant/defendant about the nature of transaction namely the

business of the respondent /plaintiff in doing money lending by giving

money to the farmers etc. without any license was clearly proved

beyond any doubt or at least preponderance of probabilities. On the

contrary, there is no rebuttal evidence from respondent/plaintiff. The

appellant was entitled to bring on record the circumstances leading to

the execution of the document and show the real nature of

transaction, in the light of the decision in the case of Gangabai

vs.Chhabubai (supra). Thus, the real transaction was clearly explained

and shown by appellant/defendant not only by his evidence but also

from the evidence of Rameshwar (DW 3) supported with documentary

evidence Exhs.86,87, 88 in respect of his suit in which he was

defendant and the respondent was the plaintiff. The trial Judge has

sa.116.01

relied on one more factor, namely, that the suit land was 40 kms.

away from Akola town where the respondent/plaintiff resides and

there was no evidence to suggest or show that the property was

purchased as a transaction of sale, pure and simple. In the wake

of the above evidence and in the absence of primary evidence on the

basis of which the suit was filed and the nature of money lending, the

question No.2 will have to be answered in the affirmative.

9. Insofar as aspect of possession is concerned, I have

already found while answering Question No.2 that the record shows

that possession was never handed over at the time of execution of

alleged sale deed, since the same would have appeared in the 7/12

extract for the year 1991-92, but 7/12 extract for the year 1992-93

showed the possession of respondent /plaintiff, which obviously

appears to have been shown by the revenue officer. But but then at

any rate 7/12 extract in the absence of sale deed, will lose its

complete significance about the real nature of transaction and even the

aspect of possession, in the absence of any recital in the sale deed about

the handing over of possession or any terms and condition regarding

possession. The Court is entitled to find out from the alleged sale deed

about the aspect of possession. That apart, the trial Judge recorded a

sa.116.01

detailed finding on the aspect of possession in paragraph nos. 9 and 10

in his judgment, which I quote :-

"9. It is to be noted that the suit field is about 35 to

40 kilometers away from Akola. Plaintiff is not having any agricultural implements. Hence under such circumstances she might have hired those agricultural implements from the

person from this village or from the other village. Even

plaintiff would have hired persons to carry out agricultural operations throughout the year along with implements.

Under such circumstances the plaintiff ought to have examined such person on her behalf. But the plaintiff has miserably failed to examine those persons and to establish

her possession over the suit field. Besides, the defendant by

his evidence of the suit field and his family is cultivating the same. As already stated above that the version of the plaintiff in para 3 of his deposition could not be negatived

by the plaintiff in the cross-examination of the defendant, it remained unchallenged. Thus, it becomes clear that even after the said so called sale-deed Article-A possession was

not parted by the defendant. Thus it gives weightage to the say of the defendant that the said transaction is a money lending transaction. Had it been out and out sale then in that case the possession would have been handed over to the plaintiff. But it is clear that the said sale deed is a sort of security to the loan advanced by plaintiff. On the point of

sa.116.01

money lending, defendant has examined one Rameshwar Shriram Kakad at Exh.77. This witness has deposed that he

is having a fair price shop and used to take loan from the plaintiff. Before about 10 years, he had taken loan of Rs. 12000/- and the plaintiff had obtained his signature on

blank stamp paper. Thereafter, she had prepared Issar Chitthi of that stamp and had filed a civil suit against this witness. He has stated that he had paid Rs. 18000/- to the plaintiff

and had settled the said civil suit. To the said aforesaid

version there is no denial by the side of the plaintiff. There is no denying question in the cross-examination of this witness

by the side of the plaintiff. Thus the said version of this witness remained unchallenged. Besides, this version of the D.W. 3 is also being supported by the copy of the plaint in

the suit filed by Banarasibai against this witness at Exh.87.

The copy of the written statement in the said suit is at Exh.

88. Withdrawal pursis Exh.34 in the said suit No.169/1993 is also filed on this record, which is also placed at Exh.89.

This pursis shows that there is compromise out of Court and plaintiff Banarasibai had withdrawn the suit. When there is no denial on the side of the plaintiff to the aforesaid version

of this D.W. 3 Rameshwar Kakad, then in that case it has been proved through this witness that he had taken loan of Rs. 12000/- and signatures of this witness were obtained on a blank paper, which was converted into Issar Chitthi and then this suit came to be filed. It is further proved that this witness has paid Rs. 18000/- to the plaintiff and the

sa.116.01

said civil suit came to be compromised. I have already stated that versions of this witness D.W. 3 Rameshwar have

not been negatived by the plaintiff in his cross-examination. Thus it is to be taken that those versions have been admitted by the plaintiff and did not challenge it. Thus it has

been proved that there was money lending transaction in between this Rameshwar and Banarasibai. Besides, this witness has also referred to some names of other persons to

whom Banarasibai had advanced loans. This,. Itself goes to

show that Banarasibai was and is a money lender without licence, who is advancing loan under the garb of sale deeds

and agreements of sales. Thus the version of the defendant in this case, that the loan was advanced to hereunder the garb of sale deed have turned to truth in this case. Thus, the

sale deed in question is a money lending transaction and not

out and out sale. Hence, the question of handing over possession to the plaintiff in consequent to the sale deed does not arise at all. Thus the plaintiff was never in

possession of the suit property. The possession was with the defendant and his family.

10. The plaintiff appears to be very clever.

Immediately after mutating the property in her name she had mortgaged the suit field to one Bhoo-vikas Bank and had encashed her loan. It appears that she was aware that she has not received possession and she will not be able to recover the loan from the defendant. Hence plff. Had

sa.116.01

mortgaged the suit property with the said Bank and by obtaining loan encashed, the loan advanced to the defendant

was encashed. It was done by plaintiff with a view that when the loan remains unpaid, the said Bank will auction the suit field and the plaintiff will not have to take any

pains in that respect. Thus the plaintiff has already encashed the suit transaction by obtaining loan. In fact, as the suit transaction is a loan transaction, title in the suit

property cannot pass to the plaintiff."

The trial Court has thus recorded a categorical finding

based on evidence about the aspect of possession and held that the

respondent /plaintiff was never placed in possession. In that view of

the matter, I think the Question No.3 will have to be answered in

affirmative.

10. Mr. Mohta, learned counsel for the respondents then raised

a new question before me, praying that under Section 53A of the

Transfer of Property Act, his possession is required to be protected and

that relief at least should be granted in favour of respondent /plaintiff.

I do not agree, firstly because the finding on possession of the trial

Court, has been upheld by me that the possession was never handed

over to the respondent/plaintiff and, secondly, Section 53A of the T.P.

sa.116.01

Act applies to the cases of agreement and, in no case, the Court

would read alleged sale deed as agreement contemplated u/s. 53A of

the T.P. Act. Here, the case of the respondent/plaintiff was of complete

sale transaction and not of agreement of sale envisaged by Sec. 53A of

the T.P. Act. In the wake of findings it would be difficult to apply Sec.

53A in the facts and circumstances of the preset case. I therefore find

that the benefit of Section 53-A of the T.P. Act cannot be extended, as

claimed by Mr. Mohta. In the result, I make the following order :-

ORDER

1) Second Appeal No. 116/2001 is allowed.

2) The judgment and decree dated 16.02.2001 in Regular Civil

Appeal No. 120/1999 passed by learned 4th Additional District Judge,

Akola, is set aside.

3) The judgment and decree dated 30.03.1999 in Regular Civil

Suit No.664/1992 passed by learned 3rd Joint Civil Judge, Junior

Division, Akola, is restored.

    4)       No order  as to costs.



                                                           JUDGE

    sahare