Back
2016 Supreme(Bom) 973
IN THE HIGH COURT AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
T.V. NALAWADE, J.
Ramchandra Gangaram Sangole – Appellant
Versus
Shri Prakash Eknath Choudhari - Respondent
SECOND APPEAL NO. 512 OF 1991
Decided On : 10-08-2016
For the Appellant :Mr. S.S. Bora, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. V. J. Dixit, Mr. G.V. Wani, Advocate
Headnote:
Eknath - Property Dispute - [Indian Evidence Act, 1872, section 114; Indian Registration Act, 1908, section 58(c)] - The court considered the evidence of the defendant, including the nature of the transactions, the payments made, and the possession of the land, to determine the legal necessity and consideration for the sale transactions. The court found that the District Court erred in not considering the material that could have established the passing of consideration and the legal necessity for the transactions. The court referred to legal principles under Hindu law and emphasized the importance of evidence and circumstances in justifying transactions for legal necessity.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over ancestral agricultural land, with the plaintiffs claiming that the transactions made by Eknath, the father, were not binding due to lack of legal necessity and consideration. The defendants contended that the transactions were made to repay antecedent debts and for family expenses.
Finding of the Court:
The District Court erred in not considering the material that could have established the passing of consideration and the legal necessity for the transactions. The Trial Court's decision, based on the evidence of the defendant, was restored by the court.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the passing of consideration for the sale transactions and the existence of legal necessity. The burden to prove legal necessity was on the defendant, and the court found that the District Court failed to consider relevant evidence and circumstances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of evidence and circumstances in justifying transactions for legal necessity. It referred to legal principles under Hindu law and highlighted the need for the court to draw inferences based on the entire material, including the nature of the transactions, payments made, and possession of the land.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the judgment and decree of the District Court were set aside. The decision of the Trial Court was restored.
1. The appeal is filed against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Appeal No. 233/1983, which was pending in the Court of 2nd Additional District Judge, Jalgaon. The appeal of original plaintiffs against judgment and decree of Regular Civil Suit No. 89/1975 is allowed by the First Appellate Court and decree of possession is given by the District Court in favour of original plaintiffs. Both the sides are heard.
2. In short, the facts leading to the institution of the appeal can be stated as follows :-
The suit was filed in respect of agricultural land bearing Survey No. 32 (Gat No. 107) admeasuring 3 H. 45 R. situated at village Khirwad, Tahsil Raver, District Jalgaon. It is the case of plaintiffs that the suit property was ancestral property of their father Eknath. Eknath was husband of plaintiff No. 2. It is contended that Eknath was addicted to bad habits like consuming liquor and gaming Satta.
3. It is the case of plaintiffs that defendant No. 1 is shrewd and cunning businessman, but Eknath trusted him very much. It is contended that defendant No. 1 made false representation to Eknath and when Eknath was under influence liquor, defendant No. 1 got first sale deed executed on 2.7.1969 of area of 4 Acres 20 Gunta of the suit land and then again by making false representation, defendant No. 1 got executed second sale deed dated 9.2.1971 in respect of remaining portion of 4 Acres 1 Gunta of the suit land from Eknath. It is contended that no consideration was paid by defendant No. 1 to Ekanth. It is contended that Joint Hindu Family of Ekanth, plaintiffs are not benefited due to these transactions and there was no legal necessity for selling the suit property. It is contended that in any case, Eknath had only 1/6th share in this property, as it was ancestral property of Ekanth, so transaction made by Ekanth in respect of 5/6th share of plaintiffs is not binding on the plaintiffs.
4. It is the case of plaintiffs that on 2.7.1969 the price of 4 Acres 20 Gunta land was more than Rs. 60,000/-. It is contended that when the second sale deed was executed, the price of the said land was more than Rs. 80,000/-. It is contended that on both the occasions, there was promise from defendant No. 1 to re-convey the property to Eknath.
5. The plaintiffs also contend that prior permission for execution of sale deeds was necessary of the Collector, but no such permission was obtained. It is contended that defendant No. 1 then transferred the property to defendant No. 2 and defendant No. 2 is not agriculturist and transaction made in favour of defendant No. 2 is not binding on the plaintiffs. They had prayed for relief of possession of entire portion of aforesaid survey number and in alternatively, they had prayed for possession of 5/6th share.
6. Defendant No. 1 filed written statement and denied the aforesaid contentions. Defendant No. 1 contended that Eknath was Karta of Joint Hindu Family of plaintiffs and Eknath. He contended that Dodhu was father of Eknath and during lifetime of Dodhu, loan was taken for taking well in Survey No. 32 for Dodhu and one more person. He contended that initially one motor pump run on electricity was fixed on well and then one oil engine was purchased for pumping water and for that also, there was need of money. It is contended that Dodhu and Eknath had started taking banana crop in Survey No. 32 and also in other lands taken for cultivation by them on Batai basis, but they could not make profit and so, they were heavily indebted. It is contended that they had laid pipeline for irrigation purpose and for that also, they had spent huge money. Defendant No. 1 specifically contended that loan was taken from Land Development Bank and one Vikas Society of the village. He contended that there was need of money to Eknath after the death of Dodhu due to aforesaid antecedent debt and for making payment of price of oil engine etc. He contended that the price of motor run on electricity was also not paid and Poona Mach
