SETH RATILAL Vs. GANGA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the orders passed by Sub-Divisional Officer Harda as contained in Annexure C and affirmed by the Collector in appeal as contained in Annexure D under the provisions of the Act called' The Madhya Pradesh Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke Krishi Bhumi-dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapane Sambandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976' whereby sale deed in favour of the petitioner executed by one Gopiji, husband of respondent No. 1 Gangabai was declared null and void.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as follows : Agricultural land comprised in Survey No. 58/1 area 11.50 acres and Survey No. 183 area 0.15 acre situated in village Dhangaon, Tahsil Harda was allegedly purchased by Seth Ratilal from-- one Gopiji son of Kasturji who was husband of respondent No. 1 Smt. Gangabai. The property further exchanged hands. The land was transferred in the year 1978 to respondent No. 2 Gajadhar by Seth Ratilal and respondent No. 2 Gajadhar in turn further transferred the land to respondent No. 3 Komalram vide sale deed dated 30th April, 1980.

(3.) THE SDO vide order dated 9.7.1982, on the basis of material placed before him, came to the conclusion that the impugned transaction took place on 3.4.65 and was subsisting on the appointed date i.e. 1st of January, 1971. Thus, the transaction was within the purview of the Act as per Section 4 of the Act. It was held that the order of the civil Court was not on merits but on the basis of jurisdiction and limitation and, therefore, the SDO had jurisdiction with respect to the proceedings, hence the application was not barred by res judicata. The land in question was purchased by Gangabai's husband Gopiji for a sum of Rs. 2750/-. The same could not be sold for a paltry sum of Rs. 1,000/- in addition to the houses. The SDO came to the conclusion that in the year 1961 the price of the land was Rs. 2800/- and it could not be sold after four years for the alleged consideration of Rs. 1,000/- as the price in 1965 was much more. Another sale deed which was filed to show the price of the land at the relevant time was held misleading for the reason that situation of the land involved in the said sale deed was not made clear and there was difference in the quality of the land. Consideration of sale under the impugned sale deed was woefully inadequate and version of Gangabai was relied that as a matter of fact her husband had taken a loan of Rs. 1,000/- from the petitioner and the sale deed was executed for repayment of the said loan. The SDO came to the conclusion in favour of Gangabai that the transaction in question was that of loan and not that of an out and out sale. The transaction was, therefore, declared null and void under Sec. 7(i) (ii) (a) of the Act and restoration of possession of the land was directed to be made in favour of Gangabai.