(1.) I have heard Shri Joshi for the appellant at length yesterday and on considering the submissions I have directed the office to translate the agreement, Exhibit-62 which is in Marathi and accordingly the matter was adjourned to today. As per direction, the Official Translator has submitted the translation of agreement, Exhibit-62. I have heard Shri Joshi for the appellant and he took me through the judgment of the trial court as well as the judgment of the learned IInd Addl. District Judge, Malegaon dated 17-3-1998 in Civil Appeal No.50 of 1992.
(2.) IT is not in dispute that the agreement in respect of the suit land situated at Malegaon was entered into between the plaintiff and defendant No.1 in presence of witness Narayan Mahadu Patil. The said document is also signed by the said witness Narayan and also signed by the parties. Recitals of the agreement discloses that earlier the land in question were acquired for public purpose-viz. for Municipal Council, Malegaon for slaughter house and it is also not in dispute that as per acquisition proceedings, possession of the land in question vested with the Municipal Council and the compensation fixed by the Land Acquisition Officer in respect of the property was also received by defendant No.1. Subsequently, the decision was taken in the Standing Committee by passing Resolution No.166 on 10-10-1957 for derequisitioning the land and the Government has also taken decision and it is ordered that the land in question be restored to the original landlord and the price paid to the landlord be recovered.
(3.) AS per the said agreement and after getting back possession from Municipal Council, Malegaon, if party No.1 refuses or avoids to transfer the aforesaid land to party no.2 in lieu of the aforesaid amount of consideration of Rs.101/-, then party no.2 has absolute right to file a suit in respect thereof in the Court of law with the prayer therein to give the said land by sale and party No.1 to fulfil its obligation of paying the cost whatsoever that will be incurred therefor by party No.2 and that party No.2 shall incur the expenses for sale deed. It is the case of the plaintiff that the plaintiff has filed suit for specific performance for enforcement of the said agreement and alternatively the plaintiff has prayed for refund of the amount of Rs.25,000/-, which according to him he has spent for releasing the said land from the Municipal Council. The said suit was resisted by original defendant No.1 viz. the owner of the land denying the claim of the plaintiff. As highlighted in the written statement, it is her case that she is an illiterate lady and not knowing the working of the Municipality and the Government. Her husband is a heavy drunkard of liquor and under these circumstances the plaintiff approached her. According to her the value of the land would fetch about Rs.40,000/- to Rs.50,000/- and the said land was acquired for slaughter house as back as in 1956. In the year 1957 the Municipality had decided to return the suit land to her father who is the original owner. At that time defendant No.1 was minor. It is also her case that the plaintiff deceived and got executed the Kararnama and even it is her case that she is not aware of the same and according to her the said contract was void. Her admission is also to that effect that Rs.101/- was reflected in the said agreement towards the price of the land and Rs.50/- was received at the time of execution of the agreement. Defendant No.2 has denied the case of the plaintiff and also contended that the suit itself is illegal and the said transaction is against the public policy.