M/S ASHOK AGRO INDUSTRIES Vs. PATRU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts set forth by Patru in his pleading are : On 25-10-1983 Patru institutes a declaratory lawsuit under Sec. 229-B, ZA and LR Act in the court of Assistant Collector First Class, Saharanpur. He claims he is bhumidhar tenant in possession of the land. But on 20-8-1974 he executes a conditional sale to Rajeshwar Parsad with a right to re-purchase, Then to facilitate re-purchase in time and unable to manage cash he executes on 22-7 1975 an agreement favouring defendant M/s. Ashoka Agro Industries. In time, it transpires that defendants M/s. Ashoka Agro Industries and Vijai Kumar Verma have instead manouvered an instrument of outright sale to them. The instrument is a nullity ; in addition because no permission of Collector has been taken for sale of land situate inside City, Saharanpur. The price of land was settled at Rs. 160000.00 for purpose of showing in instrument. But by no measure there was an intention of sale and purchase ; the agreement only to serve as security for the loan. Furthermore, the sale violates prohibition against fragmentation in Sec. 268-A, ZA and LR Act. In this setting a suit for cancellation of sale deed was lodged in civil court but from the appellate court the plaint was returned because of lack of jurisdiction to try. Since the document is void revenue court has jurisdiction to do ignoring sale-deed. The relief to declare bhumidhar tenant in possession he prays the court for. In the alternative, the relief of restoration of possession, if upon facts, he is entitled to it.

(2.) On 23-12-1982 a written statement by Collector in total denial of Patru's claim. The plea is that he is not bhumidhar tenant. Also the suit is barred under Sec. 34, Specific Relief Act. Further the suit is bad in law because notice under Sec. 80, C.P.C. has not been sent and served. The relief to dismiss the suit Collector prays the court for.

(3.) On 9-1-1984 defendant M/s. Ashoka Agro Industries and Vijai Kumar Verma in an attempt to turn the table admit conditional sale to Rajeshwar Prasad but counter claim is categorical : plaintiff Patru and Rejeshwar Prasad have truly executed a registered sale deed dated 22-7-1975 of their right, title and interest in land. In pursuance of sale possession was delivered too. In fine, they are bhumidhar tenants in possession by reason of purchase. Further their names are mutated too in revenue records. It is claimed market value of the land did not exceed Rs. 25,000.00. This is evident from the conditional sale to Rajeshwar Prasad where value is set at Rs. 20,000 00. The plea of non sending a notice under Sec. 80, C.P.C. is raised. The relief to dismiss the suit they pray the court for.