Back
R.S. Garg, J.
Mohanlal S/O Chunnilal
vs
State Of M.P. And Ors.
Decided on : 2 July, 1998
M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 - Section 2(f), 4, 5, 6 - Res Judicata - Applicability - Prohibited Transaction of Loan - Interpretation - Judicial Discipline - Finality of Litigation.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner purchased agricultural lands from Respondent No. 5 through registered sale deeds in 1969 and 1970. Respondent No. 5 filed an application before the Debt Relief Court claiming it was a loan transaction and seeking possession of the property. The Debt Relief Court held it was a genuine sale and dismissed the application. Respondent No. 4, wife of Respondent No. 5, filed an application before the Sub-Divisional Officer under Section 5 of the M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (the Act), claiming the transaction was a prohibited transaction of loan and seeking possession. The Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector, on appeal, held in favor of Respondent No. 4 and ordered possession be restored to her.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the transaction was not a prohibited transaction of loan, but a genuine sale. It found that the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector failed to consider the findings of the Debt Relief Court, the Civil Court, and the Naib Tahsildar, which had all held that the transaction was not a loan transaction. The Court also held that the principle of res judicata applied, as the issue of whether the transaction was a loan transaction had already been decided by competent authorities.
Issues: 1. Whether the transaction between the parties was a prohibited transaction of loan under the Act. 2. Whether the principle of res judicata applied to the case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court interpreted the definition of "prohibited transaction of loan" under Section 2(f) of the Act and held that the transaction in question did not fall within the definition. 2. The Court held that the principle of res judicata applied to the case, as the issue of whether the transaction was a loan transaction had already been decided by competent authorities.
Final Decision: The Court allowed the petition, quashed the orders of the Sub-Divisional Officer and the Collector, and directed that possession of the property be restored to the Petitioner.
R.S. Garg, J.
1. By this petition, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, Petitioner assails and challenges the correctness, validity and propriety of the Orders dated 1-7-1985 (Annexure P-14), passed by Sub-Divisional Officer and Order dated 5-5-1987 (Annexure P.13), passed by the Collector, as an Appellate Authority.
2(i) The brief facts giving rise to the present petition are, that on 23-10-1969, by a registered sale, certain agricultural lands were sold by Respondent No. 5-Rama to the present petitioner for a consideration of Rs. 7,500/- and, yet, by another registered sale dated 17-9-1970, for a consideration of Rs. 2,500/-, some more land was sold by Respondent No. 5 in favour of the petitioner.
(ii) The Respondent No. 5-Rama, moved an application before the Debt Relief Court, which was registered as case No. 36/1975. The Presiding Officer of the said Court, by his order dated 8-7-1976 (Annexure P-4) held that it was not a loan or mortgage transaction, but, was a out-right sale. The said Presiding Officer rejected the application. The Respondent No. 5 bent upon seeking possession of the property took out certain proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mhow Under Section 145 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which, were registered as case No. 152/1976.
(iii) The Sub-Divisional Officer, in his order, found that the present petitioner was in possession of the property since 1968. Thereafter, Respondent No. 4, wife of Respondent No. 5, moved an application before Tehsildar for restoration of possession. The said application was registered as Revenue Case No. 1A/74/75-76. After hearing the parties, learned Naib Tahsildar, by his order dated 10-1-1976, (Annexure P.6), rejected the said application, after recording a finding that Respondent No. 4 was not entitled to recover the possession.
(iv) According to the Petitioner, as he was facing threats to his title and possession, was forced to file a civil suit, which was registered as Civil Suit No. 60-A/1971. The learned Civil Judge Class II, Mhow, by his judgment and decree dated 17-5-1977, found that the suit property was purchased by the present petitioner under the valid sale-deeds from Respondent No. 5 and he was in possession since 25-5-1968. The Court decreeing the suit; granted injunction in his favour and, against the defendants of that suit.
(v) The litigation did not come to an end. Respondent No. 4 moved an application (Annexure-A) before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Under Section 5 of M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 (hereinafter shall be referred to as the said Adhiniyam'). The said application was opposed and contested by the present petitioner. By the Order dated 24-7-1984, in case No. 1 (Revenue)/FM/83-84, the Sub-Divisional Officer held that the transaction between the parties was a prohibited transaction of loan, the Respondent No. 4 belonged to the weaker Section of the society and as a consequence of the transaction being a prohibited transaction, Respondent No. 4 was entitled to be put in possession.
(vi) It appears that before appeal could be taken to the appellate Court, the petitioner was dispossessed on 21-8-1984. The petitioner, then, took-up the matter in appeal which was heard and decided by the Additional Collector, Indore, who, by his judgment dated 29-4-1985, in Revenue Appeal No. 55/83-84, allowed the appeal and remanded the matter back to the Sub-Divisional Officer with particular directions, including that proper opportunity be given to the parties and the matter be decided in accordance with law and, the authority should decide on the facts available before it, whether the transaction was a prohibited transaction of loan.
(vii) After the remand, the matter was re-registered as case No. 4/Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon/84-85. The petition was again allowed. By order dated 1-7-1985, the Sub-Divisional Officer, Mhow (Distt. I
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
