Sitaram S/O Hemraj Khandelwal vs Shrikisan Jamnadas Rathi (Dead) ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 10956 Bom

8 sa139.2021.                                                                                                  1/2


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

                                   SECOND APPEAL NO. 139/2021
     Sitaram s/o Hemraj Khandelwal Versus              Shrikisan Jamnadas Rathi (dead) and others.
*******************************************************************************************************************
Office notes, Office Memoranda of
Coram, appearances, Court's orders                               Court's or Judge's Orders
or directions and Registrar's orders.
*******************************************************************************************************************
                  Shri J.J. Chandurkar, Advocate for appellant.

                 CORAM : S.M. MODAK, J.

DATE : 12/08/2021

Heard learned advocate for the appellant/original plaintiff.

2. His suit for recovery of the money was dismissed by the trial Court and the judgments confirmed by the First Appellate Court. The plaintiff entered into an agreement firstly with defendant No.1 and then with Defendant Nos. 2 to 5. All these defendants have appointed plaintiff as a broker for the purpose of sale of lands and they have agreed to execute the sale deed in respect of plot of land with members identified by the plaintiff. Though plaintiff paid the amount to these defendants they have failed to execute the sale deed.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of the amount paid as well as of recovery of commission, it was dismissed. The trial Court held that the transaction is hit by the provisions of the Maharashtra Chit Funds Act 1974. The First Appellate Court Court confirm those findings.

8 sa139.2021. 2/2

4. It is submitted that there is no pleading in the written statement that the transaction is hit by the provisions of the Maharashtra Chit Funds Act,1974. There is one more argument that the State Act was repealed as per the Central Chit Fund Act, 1982 and the Courts below have not considered this position.

5. At this juncture, I am inclined to frame substantial question of law on second ground only.

Whether the First Appellate Court committed wrong in confirming the finding of the Trial Court about non- compliance of the provisions of the Maharashtra Chit Funds Act, 1974 even though the said Act was repealed by the Chit Funds Act, 1982 ?

6. Issue notice before admission, returnable on 28/09/2021.

JUDGE

rkn