NARSINGH LAXMAN BAHIRWADE Vs. VISHWANATH GOPAL JOSHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Originally the defendants father was the Vatandar in respect of the suit land. On the abolition of Watan on the passing of the Bombay Pargana and Kulkarni Watans (Abolition) Act, 1950 and on the payment of Nazarana in terms of section 4(1) of that Act, being the occupant, he became the owner of the suit land under the new tenure in terms of which the suit land was not transferable unless further requirements as laid down in section 4(2) of the said Act were satisfied. On 12th May, 1964, the defendants farther made an application under section 4(2) of the Act for conversion of the suit land from new tenure to old tenure and paid the requisite amount i.e. Nazarana. However, before the application was allowed and the permission was granted converting the suit land from new tenure to old tenure, he conveyed the suit land to the plaintiff by a deed of conveyance executed and registered on 21st December, 1964 for a consideration of Rs. 900/- . On the basis of the above sale-deed, the name of the original plaintiff was entered in the Record of Rights, though subsequently authorities deleted his name from the Record of Rights on the ground that the regrant of the land from new tenure to old tenure in favour of defendants father had not been granted before 21st December, 1964. The permission for conversion of the new tenure into old tenure was subsequently granted on 10th August, 1968.

(2.) However, defendants father did not hand-over possession of the suit land to the plaintiff despite conversion of the suit land from new tenure even though the name of original plaintiff was again entered in the Record of Rights on the basis of regrant. In the circumstances, the plaintiff filed the present suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 374 of 1974 in the Court of the Court of the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Solapur, for injunction and in the alternative for peaceful possession based on the deed of sale. The father of the defendant had died before the filling of the suit. During the pendency of the suit the original plaintiff also died and his heirs were brought on record.

(3.) The case of the defendant is that on the day i.e. on December 21, 1964 when his father had executed the deed of conveyance, necessary permission under section 4(2) of the Act for conversion of the suit land from new tenure into old tenure was not granted and therefore, he was not competent to convey the suit land. The conveyance was illegal without authority of law and could not, therefore, be enforced against him and naturally against his heir-the defendant. The trial Court accepted the defence and dismissed the suit.