Bombay High Court
Smt. Vandana Anandrao Ambekar vs Smt. Nandabai W/O Narendra Bodkhe on 15 March, 2023
Bench: Avinash G. Gharote
(1) 915wp1605.23
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 1605 OF 2023
Vandana Anandrao Ambekar__ Vs. __Nandabai Narendra Bodkhe
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. K.D.Shukla, Advocate for petitioner
CORAM : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.
DATE : 15/03/2023
1] Heard Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for
the petitioner.
2] The petition challenges the judgment
dated 5.9.2022 passed by the learned Appellate
Court, whereby the order below Exh.5 passed by the
learned trial Court in favour of the petitioner/
plaintiff has been set aside by allowing the appeal.
3] It is contended that though the learned
trial Court has rendered a prima facie finding of the
petitioner being in possession, the same has been
wrongly upset by the learned Appellate Court,
without considering the documents on record and
the plea that the sale deed dated 11.4.2001 was a
fraudulent document.
(2) 915wp1605.23
4] The documents on record which are
tendered across the bar by a pursis dated 15.3.2023
indicate that the petitioner who is the original
plaintiff claims to be in possession of the plot no.55
in the lay-out on the land of field Survey no. 73/1 C,
Mouza - Manewada, claimed to have been executed
by one Chintaman Lahanuji Nandanwar, in favour of
the petitioner/plaintiff. The said document indicates
that the total consideration having been received by
Chintaman Lahanuji Nandanwar, the possession
thereof was delivered to the petitioner/plaintiff. On
the date of the agreement of sale itself, the power of
attorney was executed by Chintaman Lahanuji
Nandanwar in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff
thereby authorizing her to execute and register the
sale deed in favour of any prospective purchaser. It
is on the strength of this power of attorney, that the
petitioner is claimed to have executed a registered
deed of sale on 11.4.2001 in favour of the
respondent, who is her sister-in-law. In pursuance to
this sale deed, the respondent has mutated her name
in the records of the City Survey, has also applied to
the Nagpur Improvement Trust for regularization of
the plot, paid the regularization charges in
pursuance to which the regularization letter was
issued in her favour on 19.8.2005. A building plan
(3) 915wp1605.23
was also submitted, which came to be sanctioned by
the NIT on 19.8.2005. The name of the respondent
also stands mutated in the record of Nagpur
Municipal Corporation and the municipal taxes are
being paid by her. The complaint made by the
petitioner/plaintiff to the police authority on
31.7.2018 also indicates that the respondent has
erected a board on plot no. 55 of her name.
5] The deed of sale dated 11.4.2001 is
a registered document and carries a presumption in
law. The document has a recital of the possession of
plot no. 55 having been delivered to the respondent/
defendant. The deed of sale indicates that it has
been executed by the present petitioner as the power
of attorney holder of Chintaman Lahanuji
Nandanwar. Merely because the petitioner claims to
sign in English and on the sale deed appears a
signature in Marathi, that by itself cannot be a
ground to hold that it is a fraudulent document. The
veracity of the position will have to be tested on the
basis of evidence which may be laid during the
course of the trial. The documents on record
demonstrate that consequent to the sale deed dated
11.4.2001, the respondent has exercised a right of
ownership over the suit plot.
(4) 915wp1605.23
6] The learned trial Court in para 13 of his
order has referred to the video CD. It only indicates
that some people were gathered on the spot and
there was dispute going on about the possession and
some persons were removing the said board of the
respondent from the plot and the defendant was
installing her board. This clearly would not indicate
that it is the plaintiff who is in possession of the suit
plot in question, more so in view of the averments in
the sale deed, which has a presumptive value and
the subsequent documents as indicated above, which
indicate that the respondent has exercised right of
ownership over the same. I do not see any reason to
interfere in the judgment of the learned Appellate
Court, which considers the position in its entirety
based upon the documents on record. The petition is
therefore without any merit and the same is
dismissed. No costs.
JUDGE
Rvjalit
Digitally sign byRAJESH
VASANTRAO JALIT
Location:
Signing Date:17.03.2023 18:17
