Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHEVANTABAI MARUTI KALHATKAR
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RAMU RAKHAMAJI KALHATKAR & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 15/10/1998
BENCH:
G.T.NANAVATI, S.P.KURDUKAR
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT
Nanavati,J.
This appeal filed by the original owner of th esuit
land is directed against the judgment of the High Court of
Bombay in Second Appeal No. 221/83.
Pursuant to an agreement of sale, the appellant sold
the suit land to the respondents under a registered sale
deed. On the basis of the sale in their favour the
respondents filed a suit for possession in the Court of the
Civil judge, Junior division, khed. The Trial Court decreed
the suit in spite of the objection raised by the plaintiff
that the sale transaction was void as the land was a
fragment and sale of such and is prohibited under The Bombay
Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1947.
Aggreived by the judgment and decree passed by the
Trial Court the appellant preferred an appeal to the Court
of Extra Assistant Judge. Pune. The learned Assistant
Judge allowed the appeal as he was of the opinion that the
sale transaction was void and therefore the respondents did
not derive any title to the land thereunder. The
respondents approached the High Court and their appeal has
been allowed.
The only contention raised by the learned counsel
for the appellant is that the land being a agent the sale in
favour of the respondents was void and therefore it was
rightly declared by the first Appellate Court to be so. We
find no substance in this contention. The Competent
Authority, on a reference being made to it by the Trial
Court under Section 36B of the Act, had held that the sale
is valid. The High Court was therefore right in holding
that it was not open to the First Appellate Court, being a
Civil Court, to go behind the order passed by the competent
authority. Section 36 A of the Act clearly bars
jurisdiction of the Civil Court to settle, decide or deal
with any question which is by or under the Act required to
be settled, decided or dealt with by the State Government or
any officer or authority.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to
costs.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2