RAMCHANDRA VISHWANATH GHAISAS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal had been preferred by the heirs of the original defendant against the decree arid judgment dated 31st March, 1971, passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune, whereunder the defendant was directed to pay to the plaintiff, the State of Maharashtra, an amount of Rs. 1,397.50 P. and costs of the suit.

(2.) This decree was confirmed and the defendant's appeal was dismissed by Extra Assistant Judge, Pune.

(3.) The original defendant Shri Ramchandra Vishwanath Ghaisas, against whom the suit was originally filed and who died during the pendency of the said suit was serving as Sub-Registrar at Baramati. On 14th June, 1952, one Govindram Ganeshram Marwadi, executed a gift deed of his properties situated in Baramati bearing City S. Nos. 23, 122, 756, 757 and 758 in favour of his wife. In the gift deed the market value of the above properties was shown at Rs. 5,000/- and on that basis the stamp duty and registration fee were assessed and recovered by Shri Ghaisas. Govindram's son by name Bansilal complained that his father undervalued the above referred properties mentioned in the gift deed, with a dishonest intention to defraud the Government. He further alleged that his father committed this fraud in collusion with the Sub-Registrar, Shri Ghaisas. On the basis of the complaint, a departmental enquiry was held in which it was found that the aforesaid properties were worth Rs. 75,000/-, on the date of the gift deed. It was also found that Shri Ghaisas was fully aware of this market value, but he dishonestly and in collusion with Govindram, allowed the document to be registered taking the value at Rs. 5,000/- only. It was averred that on the date on which the gift deed w;is executed, one Pathan was working as a Bond writer in the Sub-Registrar's office and he had pointed out to Ghaisas that a part of the gifted property was previously mortgaged for Rs. 9,000/-. He therefore refused to scribe the gift deed by stating the valuation at Rs. 5,000/-. However, defendant Ghaisas intentionally ignored the say of Patban and instead of having the gift deed written at the hands of Pathan he got it written at the hands of the other bond writer by name one Khaladkar. In the enquiry which was held by the Inspector General of Registration, Bombay State, at Pune, he passed an order on 26th July, 1955, directing that a sum of Rs. 2,275/-being the loss suffered by the Government be recovered from the Sub-Registrar Ghaisas and that he should be allowed to retire from service from the date of that order.