Bombay High Court
Kisan Narisa Lonkar vs Laxmikant Arvind Bhore on 3 September, 2021
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
1 wp2432.17.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 2432/2017
(Kisan Narisa Lonkar vrs. Laxmikant Arvind Bhore)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders or directions
and Registrar's orders
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri V.B.Bhise, Advocate for the petitioner
Shri R.L.Khapre, Senior Advocate assisted by Shri D.R.Khapre
Advocate for Respondent.
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 03/09/2021
Both the learned counsels for the parties are ad-idem that
suit before the trial court has nothing whatsoever to do with the sale-
deed dated 02.07.13 executed by the defendant in favour of the
plaintiff and one Haridas, which is for an area admeasuring 0.41 R
from land of Khasra No. 64. The suit is restricted to land admeasuring
0.41 R from and out of the land of Khasra No. 64 (which is separate
from the subject matter of the sale-deed dated 02.07.2013), which
land is claimed to have been purchased by the plaintiff under the sale-
deed dated 18.04.2014, executed in his favour by Kasturibai
Nandurkar, Raju Nandurkar and Seema Bondre. The
Defendant/petitioner, claims that earlier agreement of sale in respect
of a portion of this land dated 18.05.2012, which is claimed to have
been executed by Kasturibai Nandurkar, Raju Nandurkar and Seema
Bondre, in his favour, which is in respect of 0.20 R land from and out
of the land of Khasra No. 64, is in his possession under the agreement
dated 18.05.2012.
2. It is further an admitted position that the agreement,
dated 18.05.2012 is un-stamped and un-registered. This land which is
2 wp2432.17.odt
claimed by the defendant under the agreement dated 18.05.2012,
according to the defendant, forms part and parcel of land
admeasuring 0.41 R, which is the subject matter of the sale-deed
dated 19.04.2014. It is thus apparent that in so far as this sale deed
dated 19.04.2014 is concerned and the land subject to it, the claim of
the defendant as based upon the agreement dated 18.05.2012, would
be restricted to the land admeasuring 0.20 R as indicated by the
agreement dated 18.05.2012.
3. The learned trial Court has disbelieved the claim of the
defendant of being in possession of this piece of land which is the
subject matter of the agreement dated 18.05.2012, on the ground that
the agreement is un-stamped as well as not registered. Even
otherwise, the petitioner/defendant could not have laid any claim to
the land which was the subject matter of the sale deed date
19.04.2014 over and above to the extent of area as contained in the
agreement dated 18.05.2012. It is further material to note that the
order of injunction as passed by the learned trial Court is dated
22.12.2016. The judgment of the appellate Court in Misc.Civil Appeal
No. 1/2017, which appeal was at the behest of the present petitioner/
defendant, confirms the finding of the plaintiff being in possession of
the suit property and is delivered on 12.01.2017. The findings of the
plaintiff being in possession are based upon the sale-deed dated
19.04.2014 in favour of the plaintiff as well as the affidavit of the
owners/cultivators of the neighboring fields, namely Krushnarao
Nagorao Ingle and Sunil Sambhappa Chafde. Both the courts below
have disbelieved the claim made by the defendant of his being in
possession of the property in question and so also the affidavits of
Seema Bondre, Vinod Mawalkar and Shivdas Raut, who are also
claimed to be owners of the adjoining lands.
3 wp2432.17.odt
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner also places heavy
reliance upon the order dated 13.03.2020 passed by the District
Deputy Registrar, under the provisions of the Maharashtra Money
Lenders (Regulation) Act, 2014, which has declared the sale deed
dated 19.04.2014 in favour of the plaintiff as illegal and void. It is an
admitted position that an appeal is presently pending before the
appellate authority, in which there is no stay granted as of today. He
therefore submits that the declaration by the DDR would divest the
plaintiff of the title to the suit property and therefore any claim made
of being in possession in pursuance to the said sale-deed, would not
stand to the scrutiny of law, as it would be illegal.
5. A perusal of the order dated 31.03.2020 passed by the
DDR under the provisions of the Maharashtra Money Lenders
(Regulation) Act, 2014, would indicate that the learned DDR was
specifically aware of the pendency of Regular Civil Suit No.156/2006
as well as the order passed below Exh.5 by the trial Court and
judgment by appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No. 1/2017, dated
12.01.2017, as rendered therein and so also the pendency of the
present writ petition. It is, therefore, apparent that the findings as
rendered in the above orders and judgment by the learned trial Court
as well as the appellate Court were within the knowledge of the DDR,
in spite of which, without considering them, in para 4, page 10 of the
said order, the learned DDR has proceeded to record a finding
contrary thereto. It is a settled position of law that the findings
rendered by the civil Court even at prima facie stage are binding upon
the authorities under the different statutes which would include the
DDR, who is the competent authority under the provisions of the
Maharashtra Money Lenders (Regulation) Act, 2014. That being the
4 wp2432.17.odt
position, it was not permissible for the DDR to have recorded a finding
contrary to what has been arrived at by the civil Courts. The question
of loss of title is already the subject matter of an appeal under the
provisions of the Act of 2014, and has been rendered on 31.03.2020,
however, that does not detract from the fact that the civil Court has
already held the plaintiff to be in possession of the suit property. It is
therefore clear that the finding of the learned DDR in so far as it
relates to the possession of the suit property would have no binding
effect upon the parties in question, as they are already bound by the
findings as rendered by the civil Court in the order below Exh.5 and
the judgment in appeal.
6. That being the position, I do not find any merit in the
petition filed by the petitioner. The same is accordingly dismissed.
7. The learned trial Court shall endevour to decide the suit
as expeditiously as possible.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
