AHALIYA BAI Vs. SARDAR BHAGAT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER is assailing the orders passed by the SDO and Collector, district Sagar contained in Annexures B and C dismissing the application tiled by her for annulling the transaction entered into by the petitioner with Sardar bhagat Singh, respondent No. 1. Sale-deed was executed on 19-6-1962 with respect to 4. 84 acres of land for a consideration of Rs. 1200/ -. Petitioner claimed that she is holder of agricultural land in the weaker section of society and transaction in question was prohibited transaction of loan within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the Act called M. P. Samaj Ke Kamjor Vargon Ke krishi Bhumi Dharakon Ka Udhar Dene Walon Ke Bhumi Hadapne Sam-bandhi Kuchakron Se Paritran Tatha Mukti Adhiniyam, 1976, Act No. 3/1977.

(2.) PETITIONER's case is that it was agreed at the time of sale that on repayment of loan the sale-deed was not to be acted upon. The petitioner approached to repay the loan, but, the respondent No. 1 delayed the matter. Respondent No. 1 executed a sale-deed on 18-5-1964 in favour of respondent no. 2 Roop Singh for a consideration of Rs. 1750/ -. An application was filed after 20 years in the year 1982 by the petitioner before the SDO for claiming protection of Act No. 3/1977.

(3.) INITIALLY the application was allowed and transaction was annulled as per order (Annexure A) passed by the SDO. An appeal was preferred against the order, in which the matter was remanded to the SDO to examine the witnesses mentioned in the sale-deed and to decide the application afresh. After remand of the case the SDO examined various witnesses and on appreciation of evidence recorded a finding that it was the case of out and out sale. Statement made by Roop Singh that it was agreed that the land was to be returned on repayment, but, the petitioner could not make the arrangement of money, has not been relied upon as this admission has been made by respondent No. 1 after parting with interest in 1964 and the fact that sale-deed was executed in favour of the respondent No. 2 was to the knowledge of the petitioner and on enquiry finding has been recorded that adequate consideration was paid at the rate which was prevalent of such land in the year 1962. Thus, the transaction was fair and no undue benefit was taken adequate consideration was paid.