Bombay High Court
Bapurao S/O Shivram Pande vs Sahadeo Shankarrao Adkine on 25 February, 2016
Bench: A.B. Chaudhari
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:
sa132.14
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
sa132.14
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
sa132.14
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
sa132.14
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|
sa132.14
