Case Note & Summary
The case involves a second appeal arising from a property dispute over Survey No.20/2. The plaintiff-respondent No.1 (Damodhar Narayan Sawale) filed Regular Civil Suit No.257 of 1985 for possession of the suit field based on a sale deed dated 21-4-1979 (Exhibit 128) allegedly executed by defendant No.2 (Tejrao Bajirao Mhaske, the appellant). The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 31-7-1987, holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the purchase and that defendant No.2 had established the sale deed was nominal, executed as collateral security for a money lending transaction. Additionally, the Trial Court held the sale void for want of permission from the District Collector under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. The lower Appellate Court reversed this decision in Regular Civil Appeal No.98 of 1987 on 31-7-1995, holding that the plaintiff had proved the sale and was entitled to possession. The appellant-defendant No.2 then filed this second appeal. The High Court framed substantial questions of law regarding the burden of proof and the validity of the sale. The High Court found that the lower Appellate Court had misappreciated the evidence and failed to consider the finding of nominality and the voidness under the Fragmentation Act. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower Appellate Court's judgment, and restored the Trial Court's decree dismissing the suit. The court held that the sale deed was nominal and void, and the plaintiff was not entitled to possession.
Headnote
A) Property Law - Sale Deed - Nominal Transaction - Burden of Proof - The appellant-defendant No.2 alleged that the sale deed was nominal and executed as collateral security for a loan. The Trial Court held that the defendant had established nominality, but the lower Appellate Court reversed. The High Court, in second appeal, held that the lower Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and the burden of proof. The High Court restored the Trial Court's finding that the sale deed was nominal and void for lack of permission under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947. (Paras 1-3) B) Property Law - Fragmentation - Void Sale - Section 8 of Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 - The sale deed at Exhibit 128 was executed without the permission of the District Collector as required under Section 8 of the Act. The Trial Court held the sale void on this ground. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the lower Appellate Court had not considered this aspect. Consequently, the sale was void ab initio. (Paras 1, 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the sale deed dated 21-4-1979 (Exhibit 128) was a genuine sale or a nominal document executed as collateral security for a money lending transaction, and whether the sale was void for want of permission under Section 8 of the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the lower Appellate Court, and restored the Trial Court's decree dismissing the suit. The sale deed was held to be nominal and void.
Law Points
- Sale deed as collateral security
- nominal transaction
- void sale for lack of permission under Section 8 of Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act
- 1947
- burden of proof on party alleging nominality
