PUNAMCHAND SOBAJI OSWAL Vs. DATTATRAYA BHARAT DANDEKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition under the Maharashtra Debt Relief Act, 1975 represents a glaring instance of misplaced enthusiasm of the Authorised Officer under the Act who has transgressed all limits of procedure, propriety and principles of justice.

(2.) One Bharat Dandekar is a resident of Chiplun. He claims to own a house and some adjoining land as his ancestral property. He had taken loan from time to time from the present petitioner Punamchand Oswal and during the course of his dealings executed an agreement dated 29-12-1971 to sell his property. By that time the loan was Rs. 4,000/-. Subsequently Bharat incurred further liability for the purpose of continuing his own business or profession of preparing brass and copper vessels. Ultimately the total liability amounted to Rs. 8,000/-.

(3.) When this happened he executed a sale-deed dated 14th Oct. 1974 for a consideration of Rs. 8,000/- in respect of his house along with the open plot of ground in favour of the petitioner. A regular sale-deed was executed as registered sale-deed under the Indian Registration Act. The recitals in the sale-deed show that the vendor gives a warranty of title and purports to put the purchaser in possession as full owner. The document appears to have been drafted and written by professional bond-writer, who has included the usual warranties and recitals in the document, which are always found in a normal sale-deed. In spite of the recitals in the document that possession was transferred to the purchaser, some dispute is being raised before us by the respective parties but it is not necessary to take cognizance of that dispute in this litigation.