A property dispute between M/s Honesty Land Developers and the defendants, where the appellants claim possession and ownership of certain plots in Aurangabad, acquired legally through auction by HDFC Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The main issue centers around competing claims to ownership of the land originally held by the Rithe Family, who sold plots through a power of attorney. The trial court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, granting an injunction against the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, questioning the evidence of the plaintiffs' ownership and possession. The High Court, on further appeal, reinstated the trial court's decision, affirming the plaintiffs' title and possession over the suit plots.

1. Parties Involved

• Appellants: M/s Honesty Land Developers, represented by partners.
• Respondents: Legal heirs and representatives of the deceased Madhukar Sonaji Salve and Suresh Uttam Pawar.

2. Case Background

• Appellants filed for a permanent injunction to prevent interference in their possession of specific plots within Block Nos. 124 and 125 at Gandheli Village.
• The land was auctioned by HDFC Bank under SARFAESI Act provisions after the previous owners defaulted on loans, with possession transferred to the appellants in 2008.

3. Defendants' Arguments

• The defendants claimed the appellants lacked clear title, questioning the area specified and asserting their own ownership based on subsequent sale deeds obtained from the Rithe Family's legal heirs.
• They challenged the appellants’ descriptions, asserting that the suit lacked a proper identification of the property.

4. Trial Court Decision

• The trial court ruled in favor of the appellants, granting them permanent injunction rights by affirming their title and possession of the plots.

5. Appellate Court’s Reversal

• The first appellate court reversed this decision, citing insufficient evidence to support the appellants' ownership claims, particularly regarding the land area and plot locations.

6. High Court's Final Ruling

• The High Court reinstated the trial court's judgment, affirming that the appellants possessed valid ownership based on proper legal procedures under SARFAESI, upheld by sale certificates and possession records.

Acts and Sections Discussed

1. SARFAESI Act, 2002

   • Relates to the seizure and auction of the property due to loan default, which served as the basis for the appellants' acquisition of the disputed plots.

2. Order VII Rule 3 of CPC

   • Concerns the requirement for precise property descriptions in suits involving immovable property.

3. Evidence Act

   • The court addressed the importance of documentary evidence, ruling that oral claims cannot override written documentation.

Legal Ratio and Observations

The High Court’s ruling reinforces that documentary evidence, such as sale certificates and mutation records, supersedes unsubstantiated oral claims. The principle that title cannot be conferred by fraudulent means or by entities lacking legal ownership was upheld, emphasizing that fraudulent actions cannot validate ownership claims.

Subjects:

Property Law, SARFAESI Act, Land Dispute, Civil Appeal.

CivilJudgment  #Injunction