BAJIRAO GANPATI Vs. DAULATRAO MALHARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only point in this appeal is whether the transaction in question is a sale or merely an agreement for sale.

(2.) The plaintiffs had applied to the Debt Relief Court for settlement of their debts and eventually that Court framed a scheme whereunder the debt was payable to one Waman Gopal who was their only creditor by instalments. The date on which the scheme was prepared was 13-6-1941 and the last instalment was made payable thereunder on 15-3-1949. On 28-4-1949, the plaintiffs executed a document exhibit D-9 styled as 'Sauda Chitti' whereunder they agreed to sell field S.No. 49/1 of mauza Chincholi, taluq Mehekar, district Buldana to the defendant for a sum of Rs. 4500/- in consideration of the defendant satisfying the debt due to Waman Gopal. In pursuance of this agreement, the plaintiffs put the defendant in possession of the property, it is stated that the defendant has been paying instalments to Waman Gopal regularly.

(3.) On 1-4-1950, the plaintiffs instituted the suit out of which this appeal arises for possession of the field on the ground that the transaction represented by exhibit D-9 was not merely a contract of sale but was a sale itself and as such was void under Section 15 of the Central Provinces and Berar Relief of indebtedness Act. The plaintiffs claim was denied by the defendant who contended that the transaction was not a sale but was merely an agreement to sell and that the parties had contemplated the execution of a proper deed of conveyance at a later date. The suit was decreed by the trial Court but was dismissed by the lower appellate Court.