JUDGMENT - A.A. HALBE, J.:—-In Special Civil Suit No. 49 of filed in the Court of Civil Judge, Senior Division Ahmednagar by the respondent-plaintiff Machchindranath Kundlik Tarade against the respondent-defendant No. 1 and appellant-defendamt No. 2 for possession of agricultural land Survey No. 30 admeasuring 15 acres 17 gunthas in Block Nos. 84 and 85, the Court was pleased to decree the claim of possession of the suit land in favour of the plaintiff. It was contended that in order to meet the pecuniary difficulties, the plaintiff had taken a loan of Rs. 5,000/- from his son-in-law i.e. defendant No. 1 Dhamane and executed a sale deed dated 2nd November, 1971. The defendant No. 1 Dhamane in turn, sold 10 acres out of Survey No. 30 to defendant No. 2 for Rs. 30.000/- under the sale deed dated 15.7.1992. It was further claimed that the plaintiff was the member of Kandal (Bk) Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd. (Society for short) and had obtained a loan. The amount of loan was outstanding at the time when the first sale deed for Rs. 5,000/- was executed on 2.11.1971. The said society is a Resource society and majority of the members are agriculturists, as required under section 48 (Explanation) read with section 2(25) of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act (Act for short). The suit land was given in charge in order to secure the loan as early as on 9th September 1969 for which there was mutation entry No. 3346.

2. The plaintiff contended that the sale deed in favour of defendant No. 1 and another sale deed by defendant No. 1 in favour of defendant No. 2 were void in view of the prohibition contained in section 48 Clauses (d) and (e) and that the same was void and, therefore, the plaintiff was entitled to possession of the land. The further pleadings were that the bar of Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act was also operative in Kendal village prior to 1971 and on that count also, the transaction could not survive. As stated above, the plaintiff asked for possession of that land.

3. This was resisted by defendant No. 2 who is now the appellant before this Court. In the written statement at Exh. 24 and another at Exh. 39, which was in regard to the amendment sought by the plaintiff during the pendency of the suit, the defendant No. 1 did not contest the suit obviously because he could not dispute the alienation in his favour as being hit by section 48 of the said Act. The defendant No. 2, however, contended that plaintiff had ostensibly sold the land to defendant No. 1 for Rs, 5,000/- and defendant No. 1 sold it to the defendant No. 2 for Rs. 30,000. He also contended that the suit was filed by the plaintiff in collusion with his son-in-law i.e. defendant No. 1 in order to grab the land. It was further contended that both the sale deeds were duly registered. However, as the plaintiff was in possession of large area of land and that part of the land was likely to be taken over under the Ceiling Act as surplus land, he sold this land to defendant No. 1 for valuable consideration.

4. The defendant No. 2 further contended that he has spent large amount to the tune of Rs. 31,000/- for development of the land. He has spent for digging well. He has also spent for surfacing the well from inside. Further he had to spend for manure of the goats, levelling of the land and the total expenses, therefore, were to the tune of Rs. 42,000/-. Since receipt of possession, he has been cultivating sugercane. He also contended that the plaintiff was not the member of the above society; that he was not indebted to that society on the relevant date; that the charge was invalid as the same was not registered; that the sale deeds are not against the public policy and that they would be deemed to be void only against the society but not between the plaintiff and defendant Nos. 1 and 2. It was further contended that the plaintiff could not be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong. He kept defendant No. 2 in dark

Click Here to Read the rest of this document