Crux:
Rahul Anandrao Malve and 4 others Vs the State of Mah the Pso Wathoda (2020): cancellation of power of attorney, possession and a permanent injunction in a property dispute
Date of Judgement
17 December 2020
Judge
Justice V.M. Deshpande and Justice Anil S. Kilor
Parties
Rahul Anandrao Malve, Milind Anandrao Malve, Madhukar Mahadeo Pardhi, Anil Kisanji Mulewar, Md. Badrul Nisaruddin Ansari. (applicant)
The State of Maharashtra and Sarika Vasantrao Nagpure (respondent)
Subject
- Whether the subsequent transaction, with regard to the said property, is being shown by Defendant No.2, 3 and 4 as binding upon the plaintiff on the basis of one registered sale deed?
Overview
- The applicants are requesting the quashing and setting aside of the First Information Report filed with the Police Station on October 23, 2020, under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, based on a complaint filed by the non-applicant No.2 against the applicants.
- According to the prosecution, on October 23, 2020, non-applicant No.2 filed a criminal complaint against the applicant, claiming that she is the daughter of late Vinodhibai and that she is the only legal surviving heir of Vinodhibai, who purchased plot No.13, measuring 1975 sq. ft. in Mouza Dighori, Nagpur, during her lifetime.
- Her name was allegedly mutated on the N.M.C. record when she asked for mutation following the death of her mother. However, when she and her husband went to the said plot on February 7, 2019, applicant No.5 threatened her and claimed to be the owner of the site.
- She then stated that the accused parties attempted to take the complainant's property by forging documents and producing a false power of attorney. As a result, she filed a report right away, and the crime was officially recorded.
Legal provisions
- Sections 420, 465, 470, 471 CrPC read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code.
- Sections 420 - Warrant with whom to be lodged. When the prisoner is to be confined in jail, the warrant shall be lodged with the jailor.
- Sections 465 - Finding or sentence when reversible by reason of error, omission irregularity.
- Section 470 - Exclusion of time in certain cases.
- Section 471 - Exclusion of date on which Court is closed
Judgement Analysis
- The defendants accept plaintiff's claim that she is the owner of the property in question, despite the fact that she is just the legal heir of Smt. Vinodini Bhayyaji Yeole, the property's original owner.
- The defendants further acknowledge that the plaintiff is in physical possession of the suit property and agree that they will not interfere with the plaintiff's peaceful ownership of the suit property in the future.
- The parties also agree that the defendants may file a petition with the Hon'ble High Court to have the FIR bearing No. 0337 dated 23/10/2020 registered by the Wathoda Police Station quashed.
- Similarly, any possession letters issued by the defendants are null and void. All original documentation pertaining to the property in question must be handed over to the plaintiff by defendants 1 to 5.
- The defendants further agree that they will not dispute or object to the plaintiff's title or possession in any court of law in the future.
Conclusion
The non-applicant No. 2 is personally present in court and has acknowledged the existence of the compromise as well as the terms and conditions set forth therein. She has notified this Court that she is the owner of the property in question and that she has no ongoing grievances as a result of the compromise deed's terms and conditions.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
