Yeshwantrao Laxmanrao Ghatge vs Baburao Bala Yadav

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

1978 Supreme(SC) 46

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
N.L. UNTWALIA AND P.S. KAILASAM, JJ.
Yeshwantrao Laxmanrao Ghatge and another, Appellants
Versus
Baburao Bala Yadav (dead) by LRs, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 968 of 1968
Decided on 9-2-1978.
Advocates appeared
Mr. R. B. Datar and Miss Farhat Qadiri, Advocates, for Appellant; Mr. A. G. Ratnaparkhi, Advocate (for Nos. 1 (a) to 1 (c), 5, 6 (a) to 6 (g)), M/s. Sharad Manohar and Randhir Jain, Advocates (for Nos. 2-3) and Mr. K. L. Hathi and Mr. M. N. Shroff, Advocates (for No. 7), for Respondents.

Advocates:
A.G.Ratnaparkhi, Farhat Qadri, K.L.Hathi, M.N.SHROFF, R.B.DATAR, RANDHIR JAIN, Sharhad Manohar

Headnote:
Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Section 16 – Appeal against conviction - Orders of acquittal – Lead evidence - Procedure to be followed by Food Inspectors is provided for in section 11. Under sub-section (1), a Food Inspector taking a sample of food for analysis has to give notice to the person from whom he has taken the sample, separate the sample then and there into three parts, mark and seal or fasten up each part in such a manner as its nature permits, deliver one of the parts to the person from whom the sample has been taken, send another part for analysis to the Public Analyst and retain the third part for production in any legal proceedings or for analysis by the Director of the Central Food Laboratory. Sub-section (2) says – Held, Reliance was also placed upon the case of Skeate v. Moore (1971) 3 All ER 1306. In that case the report of the Public Analyst showed that the aggregate of meat in the two pies represented a smaller percentage of meat than was required to be contained in one meat pie under the Meat Pie and Sausage Roll Regulations, 1967: He did not find separately the meat content of each of the two pies sent to him. Under Regulation 5, a meat content of each pie was necessary to be found out. The proceeding had to be in respect of an article of substance sampled." They were found to relate to part only of the sample taken. And in that view of the matter the conviction was quashed. In our opinion, the language of the 1955 Act and the Regulations framed thereunder being quite dissimilar to our Statute and the Rules, the decision aforesaid cannot be pressed into service in favour of the respondents - On a careful consideration of the matter, we have come to the conclusion, and we say so with very great respect, that Pamananis case (AIR 1975 SC 189) on the point at issue before us was not correctly decided. And this would have necessitated our passing of various consequential orders in these cases - In some cases High Court refused special leave against orders of acquittal; in others some other grounds, of attack on the order of conviction were available but were neither gone into nor decided by the High Court; in some others the High Court following the decision of this Court in Pamananis case (AIR 1975 SC 189) recorded orders of acquittal. We also found that, in some cases, the adulteration was of a minor and technical character, although in some it was of, rather, serious nature too. In some cases, decisions were given on the footing that chillies powder is condiment and not spice - a matter which we are not deciding. But taking the totality of the facts and circumstances of each case and specially the fact that Pamananis case has held the field for about three years by now, we did not feel that justice required that we should interfere with the orders of acquittal in all these 941 cases and send some cases back to the High Court while deciding others ourselves by recording orders of conviction. Rule 22B clarifying the law has also been introduced as late as December, 1977 although Pamananis case was decided - Order accordingly

JUDGMENT

N. L. UNTWALIA, J.:— This is a plaintiffs appeal by special leave. The trial Court dismissed the suit and the Bombay High Court maintained the dismissal in appeal by the plaintiffs.

2. The facts are a bit complicated. For the disposal of the present appeal, only a few of them need be stated in a narrow compass. One Ambabai, wife of Chintamanrao Ghatge purchased lands mentioned at items 1A to 1E in the plaint on the 3rd of December, 1896 in the name of the deity Shri Vitthal Rakhumai Dev. Lands at 1F, 1G and 1H were endowed by Ambabai to the deity by a deed of endowment executed in January or February, 1905. Under this deed of endowment, one Pandurang Babaji Pawar was appointed the Vahivatdar (Manager) and one Bala Appa Yadava was appointed as a servant of the deity. On the 1st of June, 1905, however, Ambabai executed a sale-deed in respect of all the suit properties except property 1E in favour of Pandurang and Bala. On the 23rd of June, 1907 Ambabai executed a second Will and in that also she reiterated that Pandurang was being appointed as Vahivatdar and Bala a servant of the deity. Ambabai died on the 12th of March, 1910. After her death Pandurang and Bala partitioned the properties purchased by them by the sale-deed dated 1-6-1905. Pandurang got property at 1C and the rest went to Bala. Pandurang died on the 13th of February, 1911. Thereafter his widow Radhabai sold the property at 1C to one Chinto Deshpande. Chinto sold it to original defendant No. 2. Property at 1E came in possession of the original plaintiffs - Plaintiff No. 1 being Yashwantrao Laxmanrao. He claimed to be a Manager and hereditary trustee of the deity. Original plaintiff No. 2 who died during the pendency of the suit and on whose death his legal representative was substituted claimed to be the hereditary Pujari of the deity. Property at 1E had come in possession of the plaintiffs long time back and plaintiff No. 1 treated the said property as his own. There were several other transfers inter se between the defendants and ultimately in one from or the other defendants 1 to 6 came to hold one kind of interest or the other in the various suit properties. The plaintiffs instituted the suit in the year 1961 with the permission of the Charity Commissioner, Maharashtra, defendant No. 7. The suit was instituted under Ss. 50 and 51 of the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 - hereinafter called the Act, to recover possession of the suit properties from defendants 1 to 6. Property at 1E have been sold by plaintiff No. 1 on the 17th of September, 1947 to original defendants Nos. 2 and 3. The sales made in the year 1905 as also in the year 1947 were attacked as being void and not binding on the deity. Although specifically the deity was not impleaded as a plaintiff in the suit, as observed by the District Judge, Satara who tried the suit in the first instance, to all intents and purposes the suit was by the deity and the two plaintiffs. Defendants contested the suit on several grounds. Several issues were framed and tried by the learned District Judge. He held that the properties in suit were bequeathed by Ambabai to the deity. The sale-deed dated 1-6-1905 was obtained by undue influence. It was without legal necessity and was not for the benefit of the Devasthan. It was, therefore, held to be not binding on the Devasthan. The purchasers possession over the land sold was, therefore, held to be void and adverse. Same were the findings of the trial Court in respect of the property at 1E. The suit was, however, dismissed on the ground that it was barred by limitation.

3. On appeal by the plaintiffs, only limited submissions were made by them in the High Court. The finding of the trial Court that the respective purchasers were in adverse possession of the properties at 1A to 1D and 1F to 1H was not attacked. The finding of the trial Court, however, in respect of property at 1E was assailed but without success. The High Court dismissed the appeal.

4. Mr. R. B. Datar, le

Click Here to Read the rest of this document