Case title:
Damodhar (D) Thr. Lrs. vs Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske And Ors.
Date of Order:
4 May 2023
Bench: M.R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar
Parties:
Appellants- Damodhar Narayan Sawale (D) through LRs.
Respondents- Shri Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske & Ors
SUBJECT
A sale guarantees the transfer of ownership of a property from one person to another. A sale deed grants legal rights to the purchaser of a property. Once ownership is transferred, the seller has no rights to that property. Everyone has the right to peaceful possession of their property. The present case deals with the quiet possession of the purchaser's property being disturbed by the former owner of the suit land and the validity of the registered sale deed between the defendants and the plaintiff. This case also touches upon elements of the Transfer of Property Act, Fragmentation Act, Civil Procedure Code, etc.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS
- Article 136 of the Constitution of India
- Section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946
- Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code
- Section 36A of the Fragmentation Act
- Section 36B of the Fragmentation Act
- Order VIII Rule 6A of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
OVERVIEW
- As per the sale deed dated 21.04.1979., defendants No.1 and No.2 sold the suit land to the plaintiff.
- Soon after the deed was executed, defendant No.2 started disturbing the plaintiff's possessions.
- Plaintiff had absolute title over the land and the defendant who sold off the land to pay his debts, no longer had any right to that possession.
- It is necessary to note that the original petitioner of the SLP died during the pendency of the proceedings. His legal representatives were impleaded as additional respondents.
- The first defendant filed a petition claiming that after the suit was executed, the second defendant acted dishonestly and disturbed the plaintiff's peaceful possession. This claim was denied by the second defendant.
- The second defendant filed a statement revealing that the sale deed was just a sham document that was not to be acted upon.
- Additionally, no consideration for sale had been passed by the purchasers. Hence it was implied that the deeds were executed without the intention of effecting a sale.
- The second defendant also stated that the plaintiff is entitled to no relief based on Section 10 of the Bombay Money Lenders Act, 1946, and the provisions of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.
- The trial court held that the plaintiff failed to show any proof that he purchased the land for legal necessity and ruled that the plaintiff had not purchased the land as claimed.
- The First Appellate Court set aside the High Court order and held that the second defendant failed to show that the sale was the outcome of a money-lending transaction.
- The second defendant then applied to the High Court of Judicature in Bombay, where the trial court's decision was restored.
- Aggrieved by this order, the plaintiffs approached the Supreme Court of India through a Special Leave Petition.
ISSUES RAISED
- Did the plaintiff establish his entitlement to the property based on the sale deed?
- Did the second defendant establish that the sale deed was nominal and that the transactions were carried out under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act?
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS
- The Hon’ble Supreme Court of India set aside and quashed the High Court order and allowed the present appeal in favor of the plaintiffs
- The bench consisting of Justice M.R. Shah and Justice C.T. Ravikumar held that the High Court decision that deemed the sale transaction void as per the Fragmentation Act was not sustainable.
- The court noticed that Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code grants the civil courts the authority to determine disputes of a civil nature unless barred by a statute. Section 36A of the Fragmentation Act provides that the civil courts cannot settle, decide or deal with any question under the said Act. This question must be settled by the State Government or any officer/authority. Moreover, any suit filed under this Act must be referred to the competent authority as per Section 36B
- Thus, the court concluded that the trial court had no jurisdiction to decide the present matter.
- The court observed that a defendant could not raise a counter-claim against a co-defendant according to Order VIII Rule 6A, CPC.
CONCLUSION
Article 136 of the Indian Constitution empowers the Supreme Court to grant special leave to appeal from any court/tribunal in India against any judgment, order, or decree. In this case, the Supreme Court reiterated that even though the powers under Article 136 must be used sparingly and in extraordinary circumstances where the substantial question of law is brought up, it doesn’t prohibit the courts from reversing an order from the lower courts that result in grave injustice. The High Court judgment in the present case was erroneous as it was based on wrong observations.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
