2011(3) ALL MR 722
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY(AURANGABAD BENCH)
R.K. DESHPANDE, J.
Komalbai W/O. Shahaji Wadkar & Ors.Vs.Vishwanath S/O. Nagu Kadam & Ors.
Writ Petition No.8450 of 2009
30th June, 2010
Petitioner Counsel: Smt. MADHAVESHWARI D. THUBE-MHASE
Respondent Counsel: Shri. N. N. SHINDE
Constitution of India, Arts.266, 227 - Concurrent finding of facts - Interference - Lower Court granting temporary injunction on finding of prima facie case and balance of convenience - Finding based on material evidence - No perversity or error of jurisdiction - Not liable to be interfered with.
When lower Court grants temporary injunction to plaintiff on finding of prima facie case and balance of convenience in his favour and there is no error of jurisdiction or perversity the High Court cannot interfere with the findings. The sufficiency or insufficiency of the material in support of such findings or appreciation of evidence, cannot be subject matter of scrutiny under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. [Para 12]
JUDGMENT :- This writ petition is preferred by the original defendants, challenging the order dated 13.11.2009 passed by the learned District Judge - 1, Nilanga, District Latur, dismissing the Misc. Civil Appeal No.33/2009 filed by the petitioners, challenging the order dated 8.10.2009 passed by the learned 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nilanga, allowing Exh.5, application for grant of temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.46/2009. Both the Courts below have held that prima facie plaintiffs have proved their possession over the suit property and prima facie case was also made out for grant of relief of specific performance of contract i.e. agreement dated 25.6.1998 for reconveyance of the property. Hence, this writ petition is preferred by the original defendants.
2. Notice in this matter was issued on 14th December, 2009. On 12th April, 2010, this Court had made it clear that the matter shall be finally disposed of at the stage of admission. Thereafter, again the matter was adjourned on 14th June, 2010 as none appeared for the respondents. It was adjourned by way of last chance. Accordingly, the matter is listed today. Smt. Madhaveshwari Thube-Mhase, the learned counsel appears for the petitioners whereas Shri. N. N. Shinde, the learned counsel appears for the respondent Nos.1 to 3. Rule. Shri. Shinde, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 3 waives service of notice. By consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally.
3. The facts which are not in dispute are that by registered sale-deed dated 23rd of May, 1996, the plaintiffs purchased the suit property for consideration of Rs.50,000/-. On 4.5.1998 the defendant No.1, by registered sale-deed purchased the suit property from the plaintiffs for consideration of Rs.65,000/-. The plaintiffs filed Regular Civil Suit No.46/2009 which is pending in the Court of 2nd Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nilanga. It is the suit for specific performance of contract dated 25.6.1998 for reconveyance of the property by the defendants in favour of plaintiff No.1. It is alleged that the sale dated 4.5.1998 in favour of defendants was nominal one and it was a loan transaction with understanding that the property shall be reconveyed upon payment of loan amount with interest. Although on 4.5.1998 there was no such agreement of reconveyance executed nor such was the recitals in the said sale-deed, it is alleged that on 25.6.1998 such an agreement was executed and accordingly the plaintiffs had shown their readiness and willingness to pay the amount due and payable. Since the defendants refused to reconvey the property, Regular Civil Suit No.46/2009 was filed.
4. The plaintiffs filed an application, Exh.5, for grant of injunction, restraining the defendants from interfering with the possession of the suit property. The plaintiffs claimed to be in possession of the suit property and alleged that although the sale-deed was executed on 4.5.1998, the possession was not handed over to the defendants as the sale-deed was nominal. The defendants also filed an application, Exh.38, for grant of temporary injunction, restraining the plaintiffs from disturbing the possession of defendants over the suit property. According to them, the possession of the suit property was delivered under the sale-deed dated 4.5.1998 and since then the defendants were in possession of the property. The defendants denied the execution of agreement dated 25.6.1998 of which the specific performance was sought.
5. The Trial Court by its common order passed below Exhs.5 and 38, allowed the application, Exh.5, filed by the plaintiffs and rejected the application, Exh.38, filed by the defendants. The defendants were restrained temporarily from causing any sort of interference or obstruction in possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property till the final decision of the suit. The Trial Court recorded a finding on prima facie assessment of the case that the plaintiffs have made out prima facie case and they have also established their possession over the suit property. Hence, after considering the balance of convenience and irreparable loss, the order of injunction was passed in favour of plaintiffs and the application of the defendants was rejected.
6. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the Trial Court, the petitioners preferred Misc. Civil Appeal No.33/2009 which was decided by the learned District Judge - 1, Nilanga by his judgment and order dated 13.11.2009. The Appellate Court concurred with the findings recorded by the Trial Court in respect of prima facie case, made out by the plaintiffs for specific performance of contract dated 25.6.1998 and that the plaintiffs had established their possession over the suit property. The appeal was, therefore, dismissed.
7. The learned counsel for the petitioners, the original defendants, has vehemently urged that after execution of sale-deed dated 4.5.1998, the name of the defendants is shown in the 7/12 extract continuously from the year 1999-2000 to 2010. She has produced the certified copy and the 7/12 extract for the year from 2000 to 2010. According to her, the possession was given to the defendants on the date of execution of sale-deed on 4.5.1998 and recital to that effect is contained in the sale-deed. She submits that the defendants have denied the agreement of reconveyance dated 25.6.1998. The defendant No.1 has denied that she has executed any such agreement. According to her, if such an agreement of reconveyance was executed on 25.6.1998, then nothing prevented the plaintiffs from objecting to the mutation entries, carried out in the name of the defendants from the year 1999-2000 to 2009, when the suit was filed. She submits that no such complaint was ever made and therefore, the 7/12 extract produced on record shows their possession along with recitals contained in the sale-deed dated 4.5.1998. According to her, both the Courts below have ignored such aspects of the matter. The findings recorded are, therefore, perverse which require interference by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
8. Learned Counsel Shri. N. N. Shinde, appearing for the respondent Nos.1 to 3 has, however, refuted the contention raised by the petitioner. He submits that the Courts below have recorded the concurrent findings in respect of prima facie case as well as the possession of the plaintiffs over the suit property. According to him, at any rate, it is a possible view of the matter which is taken on the basis of material available on record. He further submits that all the aspects urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner have been taken in to consideration by the Courts below and hence, this Court should not interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. He supports the orders passed by the Courts below.
9. The question of reconveyance of the property as per the contract dated 25.6.1998 is required to be gone into. The Courts below have on prima facie assessment of evidence on record, recorded a finding that the plaintiffs have made out the case for reconveyance of the property on the basis of said agreement dated 25.6.1998. The property was undisputedly purchased by the defendant No.1 by sale-deed dated 4.5.1998. The defendant No.1, however, denies her thumb impression on the agreement of reconveyance dated 25.6.1998. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that criminal proceedings have also been initiated in respect of the same. However, in my opinion, findings recorded by the Courts below on prima facie assessment require no interference, as it is based upon the evidence available on record and at any rate it is a possible view of the matter.
10. The real controversy lies in respect of the dispute regarding possession of the property. No doubt, it is true that in the registered sale-deed dated 4.5.1998, there is a recital that the defendant No.1 is put in possession of the property. It is also true that from the year 1999-2000 and onwards the names of the defendants are mutated in the revenue record in respect of the property in question. The Trial Court has considered all the aspects of the matter, including the points which are also urged before this Court. The findings recorded by the Trial Court are contained in para Nos.41 and 43 of the order. The same are reproduced below :
"41. No doubt it is true that the sale-deed dated 4.5.1998 shows the delivery of possession by plaintiffs to defendant No.1, but the 7/12 extract of suit land at Exh.9 shows that actual possession of suit land is not handed over to defendant No.1 because the cultivation column of suit land at Exh.9 from 1997-98 to 1999-2000 shows that the plaintiffs are in possession of suit property, so from this one thing is clear that the possession of suit land is not went towards defendant No.1 along with sale-deed even though the recitals of sale-deed shows the delivery of possession by plaintiffs to defendant no.1. If at all there was really handing over the possession of suit land by plaintiffs to defendant no.1, then the names of plaintiffs could not have come to the cultivation column of 7/12 extract of suit land from 1997-98 to 1999-2000, but on the contrary the plaintiffs names are to the cultivation column of 7/12 extract of suit land from year 1997-98 to 1999-2000, thus, this shows that there is no actual delivery of possession of suit land to defendant No.1 by plaintiffs at the time of execution of sale-deed.
43. Learned counsel for defendants submitted that there are documents on record regarding the insurance amount received by defendant No.1 and the loan amount exempted in favour of defendant no. 1, but the defendant No.1 may have received the insurance amount and got exemptions of loan amount on the strength of her name in title column of the suit land and that does not mean that she is in possession of suit land. He further submitted that if at all the plaintiffs could have been in possession of suit land, they might have got entered their names by way of 7/B proceedings in revenue record, it is true that the documents as to 7/B proceedings are not on record, but the 7/12 extract from 1997-1998 to 1999-2000 shows the possession of plaintiffs. In Anand Goltekar Vs. Darshan Deoba Goltekar, 2006(3) ALL MR 487, it is held by Hon'ble Bombay High Court that the entries in 7/12 extract have presumptive value unless those are rebutted, as in this case, there is no evidence towards defendant no.1 to rebutte the presumption of possession of plaintiffs over the suit land by way of entry of their names to cultivation column from 1997-1998 to 1999-2000. He further stated that the sale-deed is of dated 4.5.1998 and the agreement is of dated 25.6.1998, if the defendant No.1 had have to execute the agreement to reconvey to the suit land, then she could have executed the agreement on the date of sale-deed itself and such thing is not happened, so the agreement dated 25.6.1998 can not be believed. At full fledge of evidence, during trial it will transpire whether actually the defendant No.1 had executed the agreement dated 25.6.1998 or not and at this stage one can not come to the conclusion that due to non execution of agreement on the same day of sale-deed by defendant No.1, it is to be treated that defendant No.1 not executed agreement dated 25.6.1998."
"9. Points No.1 to 4 : The prima facie case is sine quo non to grant temporary injunction. In the present case learned counsel for the plaintiffs-respondents placed reliance on the agreement dated 25/06/1998 and also the receipts in respect of repayment of loan amount. According to the appellants - defendants the agreement and the receipts are fabricated documents. The learned trial court has rightly observed that, the nature of the documents can be determined after having full fledged trial. According to the defendants the sale-deed is an absolute sale-deed and there was no any agreement to reconvey the suit land. The trial court has rightly observed that, even the nature of the transaction can be decided during the hearing of the said suit. At this stage, only issue is as to whether plaintiffs are entitled for temporary injunction. The factum of possession plays important role in the relief of temporary injunction. The plaintiffs shall prima facie proved that, they are in possession of the suit land. The plaintiffs have produced 7/12 extract of the suit land bearing gut No.109 of village Wanjarwada. No doubt name of defendant Komalbai appears in the ownership column of the 7/12 extract of the suit land. However, in the possession column names of plaintiffs are mentioned during the period 1997 to 2000. According to plaintiffs an absolute sale-deed was executed on 04/05/1998 and possession of the suit land was handed over to Komalbai. They are such recitals in the sale-deed. Then there was M.E. No.72 of village Wanjarwada indicating that plaintiffs have purchased suit land from one Padminibai. The plaintiffs have also placed reliance on M.E. No.97 wherein it is indicated that plaintiffs have transferred suit land in favour of Komalbai by way of sale-deed dated 04/05/1998. The learned counsel for the defendants submitted that, plaintiffs have not challenged sale-deed as well as M.E. No.97 till filing of present suit. However, merely on the basis of recitals in the sale-deed and M.E. No.97 it can not be said that defendants are in possession of the suit land. As stated earlier though the sale-deed executed on 04/05/1998, the plaintiffs are in possession till the year 2000 as shown in the 7/12 extract.
10. The learned counsel for the defendants drew my attention towards the certificate of exemption from payment of loan. The said certificate is issued in the name of Komalbai by Latur District Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Latur. The said bank has also issued Kisan Credit Card in the name of defendant Komalbai. Komalbai is also member of Shirol Vividh Karyakari Seva Sahakari Society Ltd., Tq.-Nilanga, Dist.-Latur. However those documents may be in the name of Komalbai because her name appears in the ownership column of the 7/12 extract of the suit land. There is no prima facie evidence to show that, Komalbai is in the possession of the suit land."
12. It is, thus, apparent that the contention that the names of the defendants were shown in the revenue record from the year 1999-2000 continuously, has been considered. Similarly, the Isar credit card and panchanama which is sought to be relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners has also been considered and the finding is recorded. The findings are based upon the relevant material available on record. The sufficiency or insufficiency of the material in support of such findings or appreciation of evidence, cannot be subject matter of scrutiny under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. There is neither any perversity nor error of jurisdiction brought to my notice, in recording findings by Courts below. This Court cannot, therefore, interfere in the findings of fact recorded by the Courts below. It is apparently a possible view of the matter. Hence, no interference is called for in the matter.