BABASAHEB JIJIBA GAIKWAD Vs. VITHAL SHYAMMO SHELKE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These three Civil Revision Applications present almost identical questions of law & facts and therefore they can be conveniently disposed of by a common judgment. Originally three respondents from these three revision applications filed three suits for recovery of consideration amounts paid as per saledeeds, which were executed on 09.06.1982, in their favour by the present revision applicant, who is common in all three revision applications. It is not disputed that the revision applicant Babasaheb was owner to the extent of 1/4th share in Survey No. 256 to 261, situated at village Sukta, Tal. Bhum, Dist. Osmanabad. By the three different saledeeds executed on 09.06.1982, revision applicant - Babasaheb executed saledeeds in respect of different portions of lands in favour of the respondents. Respondent - Vithal in Regular Civil Revision Application No. 99 of 2003 had paid Rs. 9500/as consideration. Respondent - Jalindar in Civil Revision Application No. 100 of 2003 had paid Rs. 7500/as consideration and Respondent - Babasaheb s/o. Shamrao Shelke in Regular Civil Application No. 101 of 2003 had paid Rs. 9500/as consideration for the land purchased. After execution of the saledeeds, the purchasers were put into possession of the properties and they continued to enjoy the property till 18.01.1986 on which day the Circle Inspector, Bhum, dispossessed them. It is admitted position that the above said lands purchased by the respondents/plaintiffs were declared as surplus lands by the Surplus Lands Determination Tribunal (S.L.D.T.) under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961 (for short "the Ceiling Act"). It is further stated that the plaintiffs/respondents were not aware of the civil proceedings and as such there is failure of consideration so far as saledeeds executed by present revision applicant in favour of the respondents are concerned and therefore the respondents filed three suits for recovery of purchase money with 20% interest from the present revision applicant, who was defendant in all the suits.

(2.) The Trial Court i.e. Jt. Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhoom, dismissed the suit. He held that there was no deception practised in execution of saledeeds. The plaintiffs were not entitled to get back purchase money. So the suits deserve to be dismissed. Present respondents filed appeals against dismissal of respective suits, which came to be registered as Regular Civil Appeal Nos. 123 of 1994, 124 of 1994 and 154 of 1994. Said three appeals were heard by II Adhoc Additonal District Judge, Osmanabad and he allowed all these appeals by judgment and decree dated 15.11.2002. He held that there was failure of consideration on the part of present revision applicant which caused loss to the plaintiffs/respondents and as such the plaintiffs and respondents are entitled to get back refund of consideration. He awarded refund of Rs. 9000/to respondent Vithal in Civil Revision Application No. 99 of 2003, Rs. 7000/to respondent Jalindar in Civil Revision Application No. 100 of 2003 and Rs. 9000/to respondent Babasaheb Shelke in Civil Revision Application No. 101 of 2003. He also directed cancellation of saledeed at Exh.67, 58 and 77 in Regular Civil Suit No. 31 of 1987, 32 of 1987 and 33 of 1987 respectively. He directed that a copy of decree be sent to the Sub-Registrar for taking necessary entries in the register. He also directed the parties to bear their own costs.

(3.) The learned advocate for the revision applicant Mrs. M.A. Kulkarni argued that when the saledeeds were executed on 09.06.1982, no proceedings under the Ceiling Act was pending. Previously, there were proceedings under the Ceiling Act. However, the defendant/revision applicant was declared as no surplus. But, it is only because the Commissioner, suomoto initiated revision and remanded the matter to the S.L.D.T. in the year 1993, that gave rise to fresh proceeding under the Ceiling Act and ultimately the lands were declared as surplus and were taken into possession by the Govt. In the circumstances, there was no intention to commit any fraud as no proceedings under the Ceiling Act were pending. She also stated that no objection was taken by the present respondents while delivering the possession and they did not contest the delivery of possession by the Government. When the saledeeds were executed, the possession was also delivered and the respondents were in possession of the property from 1982 to 1987. She also referred to various rulings and argued that for 45 years, the respondents enjoyed the land thus have got back the value of price which they had paid and principle of pari delicto should have been considered by the First Appellate Court.