Bombay High Court
Govind Chatru vs Renu Ganpat Khandare & Others on 27 June, 2016
Bench: T.V. Nalawade
SA No. 402/1995
1
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
SECOND APPEAL NO. 402 OF 1995
Govind S/o Chatru Jadhav,
Age: 46 years, Occu. Agril,
R/o Dahphal Khandare,
Tq. Partur, Dist. Jalna ....Appellant.
(Orig. Deft. No.1)
Versus
1. Renu S/o Ganpat Khandare,
(Died, Respondent Nos. 2 to 4
are the L.Rs. of Res .No. 1 as per
Court order dated 26/02/2016.)
2. Yeshwanta, Age: 26 years,
3. Bhima, Age: 31 years,
4. Abhimannu, Age: 33 years,
All S/o Renu - Res. No. 1
5. Arjun S/o Genu, Age: 46 years,
6. Gyanuba S/o Arjuna, Age: 21 years,
7. Babu S/o Baliram, Age: 41 years,
Occu: Agril, R/o As above.
8. Shivram S/o Vithoba, Age 76 years,
Occu and R/o above.
9. Damodhar S/o Shivram,
Age: 46 years.
10. Sheshrao S/o Shivram, Age: 41 years.
11. Deelip S/o Shivram, Age 31 years,
12. Apparao S/o Vithoba, Age: 66 years,
::: Uploaded on - 02/07/2016 ::: Downloaded on - 30/07/2016 07:20:13 :::
SA No. 402/1995
2
13. Raosabeb S/o Appearao, Age: 41 years,
14. Bhau S/o Apparao, Age 31 years,
15. Bhagwan S/o Appa, Age: 26 years,
16. Sakharam S/o Ambadas,
Age: 31 years,
(Appeal stands dismissed
as against Respdt no.16
and stands abated
as against Respdt No.18
as per Addl. Registrar's
Court's order dtd 7/1/1998)
17.
Ranuji S/o Arjuna,
Age: 56 years,
R/o As above.
18. Sitaram S/o Khome, Age: 66 years,
Occu: and R/o As above. ....Respondents.
(R.Nos. 1 to 17 Orig.
Pltfs. And R.no. 18-
Orig. deft no. 2)
Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate for appellant.
Mr. V.R. Naik, Advocate for respondents Nos.1 to 5, 7 to 13, 15 &
17.
CORAM : T.V. NALAWADE, J.
DATED : 27th June, 2016.
JUDGMENT :
1) The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of
Special Civil Suit No. 34/1984, which was pending in the Court of
Civil Judge, Senior Division, Jalna and also against judgment and
decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 39/1989, which was pending
in District Court, Jalna. Both the sides are heard.
SA No. 402/1995
2) In short the facts leading to institution of appeal can
be stated as follows :-
Respondents had filed suit for recovery of possession
of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 15, admeasuring 14
Hector and 72 R. situated at village Dahiphal, Tahsil Partur,
District Jalna. It appears that after filing of the suit, the area
came under the Jalna District Court. It is the case of plaintiffs
that they are related to each other as cousins and they are
successors of common ancestor Bhiva. They have given
genealogy in the plaint. It is their case that the suit land was
ancestral property of their predecessors and so, all the plaintiffs
are owners of the suit property. It is the case of plaintiffs that
some plaintiffs were in need of money as they wanted to
purchase another land and so, they had agreed to sell the suit
land to defendant No. 2 - Sitaram for consideration of Rs.4,500/-.
It is contended that under agreement of sale, the earnest
amount of Rs.500/- was given to them and the possession was
given to defendant No. 2 by them. It is contended that the
remaining amount of consideration was to be paid within a
period of six months from the date of agreement. It is contended
that at the time of agreement, only plaintiff Nos. 1, 8 and 16 had
made such agreement and many plaintiffs were minors and as
the permission was not obtained to sell the property of minors,
SA No. 402/1995
there was no agreement in respect of shares of minors with
defendant No. 2. It is contended that in any case the remaining
amount was not paid and no readiness and willingness was
shown by defendant No. 2 to complete the transaction. It is
contended that the agreement was made at the time of
Gudipadwa of 1961.
3) It is the case of plaintiffs that defendant No. 2
avoided to make payment of the remaining amount and he did
not return the possession, but in stead of that he handed over
possession to defendant No. 1, who is influential person. It is
contended that as the owners they are entitled to get back the
possession from both the defendants. They contended that the
cause of action took place in the year 1966 when defendant No.
1 contended that possession was given to him by defendant No.
2. The suit was filed in January 1977.
4) Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and he
contested the matter. He denied everything including the
relationship of plaintiffs with each other and their right to get the
possession from defendants.
5) It is the case of defendant No. 1 that there was
SA No. 402/1995
agreement of sale between him and defendant No. 2 and prior to
year 1966, some amount was paid by him to defendant No. 2
and he had agreed to sell the property for consideration of Rs.
11,100/-. It is contended that from time to time, amounts were
paid to defendant No. 2 and total amount of Rs. 11,000/- was
paid by him to defendant No. 2. He admitted that there was
some transaction between some of the plaintiffs and defendant
No. 2. He contended that the transaction had taken place in the
year 1959 and under the agreement, the possession was given
to defendant No. 2 by them. He also contended that he is a
relative of defendant No. 2 and both of them were cultivating the
land from the year 1950. It is contended that on 15.4.1961
permission was given by Tahsil Office under the Tenancy Act for
purchasing the property and at that time, defendant No. 1 had
not taken objection due to relationship with defendant No. 2.
Thus, he contended that from prior to 1950, he has been in
possession. He took alternative defence that he has become
owner due to adverse possession.
6) Issues were framed on the basis of aforesaid
pleadings. Both the Courts below have held that under
agreement of sale, the possession of land was given to
defendant No. 2 by some of the plaintiffs, but no readiness and
SA No. 402/1995
willingness was shown by defendant No. 2. It is held that
possession of defendant No. 1 is permissive in nature and
defendant No. 2 had no right to sell the property. It is held that
plaintiffs have better title and so, the suit for possession is
decreed.
7) This Court admitted the appeal by observing that
substantial question of law can be formulated on the basis of
ground E mentioned in appeal memo. The ground is as under :-
(i) Whether the Courts below have committed error
in holding that possession of defendant No. 1 is not
under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and
he cannot be given protection of this section ?
8) From the pleadings in the plaint and written
statement, it can be said that defendant No. 1 has not disputed
that the plaintiffs were the owners of the land though it is
contended that defendant Nos. 1 and 2 were cultivating the land
from the year 1950. Defendant No. 1 has further admitted that
the agreement of sale was made by defendant No. 2 with
plaintiff in the year 1959. In view of this admission and the
record, it can be said that possession of defendant No. 2 was
under the agreement of sale. Defendant No. 1 has come with
SA No. 402/1995
specific case that he has given some money to defendant No. 2
and defendant No. 2 had agreed to sell the property to him.
There is record starting from the year 1955 which is including
Khasra Patrak, crop cultivation record. The original document of
agreement of sale made in favour of defendant no. 2 is at Exh.
62. This record is consistent with the pleadings in the plaint. This
record shows that defendant No. 1 had no concern at all with the
suit property. The revenue record shows that his name came to
be entered first time in the year 1966-67 and this entry was
pencil entry in crop cultivation column. Then the entry was made
in the year 1967-68 which was confirmed entry of crop
cultivation.
9) Exhs. 62 and 63, the two separate agreements made
by some of the plaintiffs show that out of the total amount of Rs.
5,000/- which is mentioned in the document, the amount of Rs.
2,225/- was paid till 28.5.1960. The possession of Sitaram up to
aforesaid year was under this agreement as per the revenue
record. It is the case of defendant No. 1 that his possession was
also under the agreement of sale and agreement was executed
by defendant No. 2 in his favour. Thus, the possession of both
defendant Nos. 2 and 1 was permissive in nature and in view of
the nature of pleadings, it cannot be said that the possession of
SA No. 402/1995
defendant No. 1 was adverse as against plaintiffs.
10) Even if it is accepted that some validation certificate,
the permission to execute the sale deed in favour of defendant
No. 2 was granted, admittedly, no sale deed was executed in
favour of defendant no. 2. There is no record to show that the
remaining consideration was paid by defendant No. 2 to
plaintiffs.
11) One so called agreement executed by defendant No.
2 in favour of defendant No. 1 is produced at Exh. 93. It was
written on simple paper, not on a stamp paper. Though the
penalty is shown to be recovered under the Stamp Act, the fact
remains that only on the basis of this document dated 4.6.1966
defendant No. 1 is claiming his possession.
12) To take the protection of provision of section 53-A of
Transfer of Property Act, it was necessary for defendant No. 2 to
show that he was ready and willing to perform his part of
contract. Defendant No. 2 did not contest the matter and there is
material of aforesaid nature in favour of defendant No. 1. There
was only the agreement of sale in favour of defendant No. 2 and
so, no interest as such had passed in favour of defendant No. 2
SA No. 402/1995
in the suit property. If defendant No. 2 was not able to prove that
he was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract,
nothing could have been achieved by defendant No. 1 on the
basis of aforesaid material. No interest has passed in favour of
defendant No. 1 even if the aforesaid record is accepted as it is.
The basic condition for getting protection of section 53-A of
Transfer of Property Act is not fulfilled and so, the defendant No.
1 is not entitled to get that protection.
13) In view of the aforesaid documentary evidence, not
much weight can be given to oral evidence. The oral evidence is
not on the conditions specified in section 53-A of the Transfer of
Property Act. In view of nature of pleadings quoted above, it was
not possible to hold that possession of defendant No. 1 is
adverse and he has become owner. In any case, the suit was
filed in the year 1977 when it is the contention of defendant No.
1 that he came in possession in April 1966. Due to this
circumstance also it was not possible for defendant No. 1 to
prove his case of ownership due to adverse possession. It can be
said that the defendant could keep the possession for so many
years of the suit land, having area 14 Hector and 72 R. by
misusing the process of law. The Courts below have not
committed any error in giving decision in favour of plaintiffs. So,
SA No. 402/1995
the aforesaid point is answered in negative and appeal stands
dismissed.
[ T.V. NALAWADE, J. ]
ssc/
