Shree Siddhivinayak Cotspin Pvt. Ltd. v. Sou. Rafiya A. Shikalgar & Others

Mr. A.V. Anturkar, Sr. Counsel along with Ms. Kalyani and Mr. Tanaji Mhatugde i/b. Mr. S. B. Deshmukh, for the Appellant. Mr. Haribhau Deshinge i/b. Mr. Vijay Killedar, for Respondent No.1. CORAM: G.S.GODBOLE,J. DATE : 17th OCTOBER, 2011. P.C: 1 2 Heard Mr.Anturkar for the Appellant. The Original Plaintiff in Regular Civil Suit No.151 of 2006 filed in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Jaysingpur has filed this S.A. 3 The Plaintiff claims to be an Auction Purchaser in an auction - 2 - 56-sa-524-2010 conducted by the Recovery Officer in proceedings under the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 (the said Act of 1993). The suit is filed for perpetual injunction. It was the case of the Plaintiff that initially the suit land was owned by Mr. Nabilal­ father of Defendant Nos.1 and 2 who sold the land by Sale Deed dated 13th November, 1981 to Defendant No.2, who in turn sold it to The Deccan Co­ operative Spinning Mills, Ichalkaranji, the Proceeding under 1993 Act were initiated against the said Company and the Plaintiff has got title on the basis of the auction sale.

4 The Defendants resisted the suit and contended that their father – Nabilal was a tenant under the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act,1948 and after his demise, the Defendants and other heirs have inherited tenancy rights. It was also contended that in Regular Civil Suit No.132 of 1994, the Deccan Spinning Mills was a party and in that suit, the Sale Deed under which Defendant No.2 had purchased the property from Nabilal, had been declared to be against Provisions of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 in the proceeding of Regular Civil Suit No.132 of 1994. In Regular Civil Suit No.168 of 1993, a decree for partition had been passed. - 3 - 56-sa-524-2010 5 The learned Jt. C.J.J.D. Jaysingpur passed a decree for perpetual injunction. Aggrieved by this Judgment, Original Defendant No.1 filed Regular Civil Appeal No.14 of 2008 in the Court of District Judge­I, Jaysingpur.

By Judgment and Order dated 28th June, 2010, the said Appeal has been allowed giving rise to the present Second Appeal. 6 Mr. Anturkar, learned Sr. Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that in proceeding under Section 29 of the 1993 Act r/w Rules framed under the Income Tax Act, 1961, two orders were passed by the Recovery Officer below applications Exhibit 310 and 311 in Recovery Proceeding No.290 of 2002; that the order passed below Exhibit 310 was challenged but the order passed below Exhibit 311 had not been challenged and had, therefore, attained finality. It was submitted that the Judgment and Order dated 4th August, 2010 passed by the learned Presiding Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune in Appeal No.23 of 2008 was restricted only to the order passed below Exhibit 310 and, hence, finding recorded in the order below Exhibit 311 that the Appellant is in possession could not have been ignored by the District Court.

Mr. Anturkar, also relied upon the cross examination of Defendant No.1, and contended that Defendant No.1 had admitted that though decree for partition was passed, she had not been put in physical possession in execution of that decree. - 4 - 56-sa-524-2010 7 I have considered the said contentions. While hearing Appeal No.23 of 2008, the learned Presiding Officer, Debts Recovery Tribunal, Pune has clearly held that the order passed below Exhibit 310 was entirely without jurisdiction. Considering the nature of application below Exhibits 310 and 311, it will have to be seen that while Exhibit 310 was filed for determination regarding saleable interest, Exhibit 311 also called upon the Recovery Officer to adjudicate the right, title and interest and the saleable interest in respect of the lands in question. Once the learned Presiding Officer has held that this aspect cannot be determined by the Recovery Officer of Debts Recovery Tribunal, the order passed below Exhibit 311 which is the order relied upon by Mr.

Anturkar looses all its efficacy. The order of the Presiding Officer, D.R.T. Pune passed in Appeal No.23 of 2008 has attained finality. 8 Since the Appellant had gone to the Court seeking perpetual injunction, it was for the Appellant to show as to in what manner and by whom the Original borrower was dispossessed and as to in which manner, physical possession of the suit land was handed over to the Appellant. It is clear from the submissions made by Mr. Anturkar that there is no - 5 - 56-sa-524-2010 document available on record indicating that physical possession was taken over from the borrower and handed over to the Recovery Officer who in turn handed over it to the Appellant. The learned Sr. Counsel, appearing for the Appellant relied upon the pursis stated to have been filed in Regular Proceeding but this pursis is not part of the record in the Civil Suit and, hence, cannot be looked into.

Even this purshis is nothing but a self serving declaration made by the Officer of the Bank which cannot be considered to be a document evidencing physical possession of the Appellant. 9 The learned Judge of the Appellate Court has rightly relied upon the document Exhibits 64 and 65 which clearly indicates that the Sale Deed dated 13th November, 1981 executed by Nabilal in favour of Defendant No.2 Appalal, had been set aside being contrary to the law. The learned Judge of the Appellate Court has, therefore, recorded a finding of fact that the Appellant has not proved either exclusive title or physical possession of the suit land. The reasoning about the possession has been recorded in paragraphs 17 to 19 of the Judgment of the Appellate Court. These are the pure findings of facts and the District Court has reversed the finding recorded by the Trial Court which was entitled to do. No perversity in the findings of the District Court is pointed out.