The main legal point established in the judgment is the overriding effect of 'The Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976' over other laws, the interpretation of the definition of 'lender of money', and the protection provided to subsisting transactions.

Arun Mishra, J.

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders passed by Sub Divisional Officer Harda as contained in Annexure-C and affirmed by the Collector in appeal as contained in Annexure-D under the provisions of the Act called 'The Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976 whereby sale deed in favour of the petitioner executed by one Gopiji, husband of respondent No. 1 Gangabai was declared null and void.

2. The facts, briefly stated, are as follows: Agricultural land comprised in Survey No. 58/1 area 11.50 acres and Survey No. 183 area 0.15 acre situated in village Dhangaon Tahsil Harda was allegedly purchased by Seth Ratilal from one Gopiji son of Kasturji who was husband of respondent No. 1 Smt. Gangabai. The property further exchanged hands. The land was transferred in the year 1978 to respondent No. 2 Gajadhar by Seth Ratilal and respondent No. 2. Gajadhar in turn further transferred the land to respondent No. 3 Komalram vide sale deed dated 30th April, 1980.

2-A. Respondent No. 1 Smt. Gangabai had filed an application under the aforesaid Act of 1976 (Act No. 3 of 1977-hereinafter referred to as "the Act") before the competent authority, Sub Divisional Officer, for declaration that the sale deed dated 3-4-1965, was null and void being prohibited transaction as contemplated under the Act. It was alleged that husband of the respondent No. 1 was suffering from mental ailment which had seriously affected his power of judicious thinking. Taking advantage of the same, Seth Ratilal initially entered into an agreement dated 24-2-1965 with respect to land comprised in Survey Nos. 58/1 and 183/1 - total area 11.65 acres and two houses built on survey No. 183/1 situated at village Dhangaon, Tahsil Harda. A sale deed was got executed for a sum of Rs. 1000/- only on 3-4-1965 for lesser than the value mentioned in the agreement. The sale deed was a collateral security for loan and on repayment of the amount property was to be returned.

3. Seth Ratilal, the petitioner, submitted a reply before the S.D.O. and contended that a Civil Suit bearing No. 104-A/1978 was filed in respect of the same property by Smt. Gangabai and her suit was dismissed by the Civil Court as barred by limitation. The subject matter of the said Civil Suit and the present application is the same and, therefore, the matter cannot be reagitated under the provisions of the Act. Respondent No. 1 Gangabai examined herself and two other witnesses, namely, Ramgir and Shrikishan, before the S.D.O. Witnesses were also examined on behalf of the petitioner.

4. The S.D.O. vide order dated 9-7-1982, on the basis of material placed before him, came to the conclusion that the impugned transaction took place on 3-4-1965 and was subsisting on the appointed date i.e. 1st of January, 1971. Thus the transaction was within the purview of the Act as per section 4 of the Act. It was held that the order of the Civil Court was not on merits but on the basis of jurisdiction and limitation and, therefore, the S.D.O. had jurisdiction with respect to the proceedings, hence the application was not barred by res judicata. The land in question was purchased by Gangabai's husband Gopiji for a sum of Rs. 2750/-. The same could not be sold for a paltry sum of Rs. 1000/- in addition to the houses. The S.D.O. came to the conclusion that in the year 1961 the price of the land was Rs. 2800/- and it could not be sold after four years for the alleged consideration of Rs. 1000/-as the price in 1965 was much more. Another sale deed which was filed to show the price of the land at the relevant time was held misleading for the reason that situation of the land involved in the said sale deed was not made clear and there was difference in the quality of the land. Consideration of sale under the impugned sale deed was woefully inadequate and version