You are on page 1of 20

,

( : )

. 58_RTS-64_2012-13
. .
.20/10/2012
:11 2015

:
. . .
:[ . . . . 9423383235]

:
1. (. . 9049387894)
. , . . .
2. (. . 8888994004)
. . .
3. ,
. , . . .
4. , . .
:[ . . . . 9890463503]
:[ . . . . 75881887887, 9422143757]
:[ . . 9960137677]

:
..
1

.. .. .
() ()
97
79/5 394

(SQ.M)
185.87

()

3.75

1|Page

10/02/2003 2105

07/05/2012 12781

:
1) , 2) , 3)
, 4) , 5) 2
5
, .

, . . 10/12/2002
. . 5385
. 97, 15000/ .



10/12/2002
10/02/2003
.
: ,
:- .
. 10/01/2012 ,
. 00293/12 1, 68, 000 /-
.

07/05/2012

:
. - , .47/-64/2011-12
() . . 16/08/2012.

2|Page

10/12/2002

10/02/2003

20/09/2011

10/01/2012

1) 2) , 3) , 4)
, 5) , 2 5
.

, . . 10/12/2002
. . 5385
. 97 .



10/12/2002
10/02/2003 . 2105
.
. 97

. , . .
. . . . .
7700/11 20/09/2011 .

. 97 .
. .
. . . 293/12 10/01/2012
.

07/05/2012


10/01/2012

07/05/2012 . 12781 .

20/10/2012

. 12781
,
20/10/2012 .

16/08/2012

. . 47/-64/2011-12
() . . 16/08/2012
,
.
16/08/2012

20/10/2012 .



07/04/2015 .

20/10/2012
07/04/2015

3|Page

( 1966 247
)
:
, . ,


.
1. - 1) 2) , 3)
, 4) , 5) , .
2 5
.

, . . 10/12/2002
. . 5385
. 97 .
2.

10/12/2002

10/02/2003 . 2105 .
3.
. 97
.
, . . .

4|Page

. . . . 7700/11 20/09/2011
.
4. . 97 .
. . .
. . 293/12 10/01/2012
.
5.

10/01/2012

07/05/2012 . 12781 .
6. ,

.
7. ,
20/10/2012
.
8. . . 47/-64/2011-12
() . . 16/08/2012

5|Page


.
9. 16/08/2012

20/10/2012 .
10.


07/04/2015 .

:

.
1. That the order passed by learned lower Court is totally , improper and
cannot sustain.
2. The Lower Court should have seen that the respondent no. 3 never
appointed Mrs. Suman sadhuji Nagrale as her agent and as such the
sale deed executed in favour of respondent no. 1 is not legal and valid.
3. The Lower Court should have seen that the 7/12 extracts attached to
the sale deed was one and half year old and not correct or recent on

6|Page

the date of execution of the sale deed and as such the sale deed in
question is suspicious and doubtful.
4. The Lower Court should have seen that the signature of smt. venu
gaikwad appearing on the sale deed is totally different and if it is
admitted inrelation to the admitted document the signatures appears to
be totally different and as such the sale deed in question appears to be
fraudulent and bogus document.
5. The lower court should have seen that the respondent no. 1 never
aplied for mutation of the plot in question on the basis of the sale deed
executed in his favour and as such the conduct of the respondent no. 1
was also essential while deciding the appeal.
6. The lower court should have seen that the mutation of plot in question
in the name of appellant has been done after following due procedure
and as such there is nothing on record to cancel the mutation in favour
of the appellant.

7|Page

7. The lower court should have seen that due enquiry is always made by
sub registrar before execution & registration of the sale deed and as
such there was nothing to challenge the registration of the sale deed.
8. The learned lower court erred in directing the appellant and respondent
no. 2 to file a suit / criminal proceeding as the sale deed are not bogus
and valid as held by the lower court is not proper.
9. The lower court should have seen that it is a civil court whithin decides
the correctness and incorrectness of the sale deed and title and it is
not the providnce of the lower court to presume that the sale deeds
areillegal and void. Thus the lower court has exceeded in its jurisdiction
in setting aside the mutation which has taken place in the name of the
appellant.
10.

The lower court should have seen that at the most it can direct

the talathi to record the mutation in the name of the appellant as


disputed and the lower court can not strike out the mutation of its own
accord.

8|Page

11.

That the learned lower court has committee total wrong in

passing the impugned order.


Prayer:- It is therefore most humbly prayed that this Honble court be
pleased to allow that appeal and set aside the order passed by the
lower court & restooe the mutation in the name of appellant in the
interest of justice.

. 1 :
. 1
.
1. . 1 34/49 . . 1984-85
: . 97
10/12/2002 . 5385/02
. 15,000/- .

. .
. 9 - .
. 10, 11 .
2. .
.
1) , 2) , 3) , 4) ,

9|Page

. 10/12/2002 .
. 97 .
3.
20/09/2011
. 7700/11 . 97 .
10/01/2012 . 293/12

. 97 . . 97 . 1
.
. 1
.
4. 16/08/2012



. 1 .
. 2105
21/01/2003 .
5.

/
.
10 | P a g e

6.
.
.
.
7.
. . 1
.
.
8. . 1 10 . 1

. . 1
.
.
9. . . 5385 / 02 . 2105
21/01/2003 . .
. 1 .
10.

. 1
11 | P a g e

. . 1
. .
.

. 2 :
. 2
.
1. The grounds raised by the appellant in this memo of appeal have no
base at all and same are baseless, aftertbought pleadings have no
scope in the eyes of law. since the impugned order of mutation passed
by the S.D.O. is proper, just and after compliance of necessary
mandatory provisions as required under law. prayer clause is denied in
toto.
2. It is submitted that the respondent no. 3 Venu Tulshiram Gaikwad is
the layout owner and owned and possessed plot no. 97 in question
which was sold to respondent no. 1 however said respondent no. 3 in
the capacity of layout owner never executed any power of attorney in
favour of Suman sadhu Nagrale. However as per contention of
appellant said power of attorney on behalf of present respondent no. 1
12 | P a g e

vide sale deed date.10/12/2002 at document no. 5385/02 for Rs.


15,000 and thereafter the respondent no. 3 has sold said plot in
question to the respondent no. 2 . The further contention of the
appellant is that thereafter only said respondent no. 2 has executed
and registered the sale deed dated 20-09-2011 vide document no.
7700/11 and as such ferfar pertaining to said transaction of sale deed
also effected in the name of saidvendee and as such he become
absolute owner of said plot in question.
3. Thus so far the transaction of link sale deeds are concerned till transfer
of plot in question in favour of transfere/appellant by executing the sale
deed from this respondent no. 2 is the only legal and valid transaction
and the transaction of sale deed alleged to be executed and registered
by the respondent no. 3 through so called forged power of attorney has
no scope in the eyes of law and as such the said sale deed was itself
void in the eyes of law. In view of this leagal position the S.D.O.
Wardha has decided the matter by holding that mutation entry on the
basis of last sale deed in favour of appellant is legal one , is totally
13 | P a g e

purverse order and suported with the aforesaid alleged illegal power of
attorney and hence the right, title and interest by virtue of said power of
attorney till sale deed in favour of appellant is not valid transaction in
the eyes of law. Thus the approach of lower court i.e. S.D.O. Wardha
holding that the ferfar effected on the basis of sale deed executed
through bogus power of attorney is proper one and also confirmed the
said mutation is against the provisions of MLR. CODE and also
transfer of property Act.
4. It is submitted that in the proceeding before S.D.O. Wadha though
summons was issued in the name of this respondent no. 2 but not
served to him and hence he was not aware about the said appeal and
also not granted proper apportunity toraise real facts and defence to
put on record of his side. Thus the impugned order passed by lower
court i.e. S.D.O. is not binding upon this respondent no. 2 since no
apprtunity to be heard was granted to him. Thus the facts and
circumstances stated here in above clearly goes to show that the sale
deed executed by this respondent no. 2 also leagal and valid one and
14 | P a g e

also validly passed the title and wonership in favour of his vendee and
same can not be challenged in any before this Honble court as the
impugned order of mutation passed by S.D.O. Wardha it self purverse
and illegal and has no scopein the eyes of law.

. 3 :
. 3
.
1.
, . . 79/5
(394 . . ) . 97 185.87 . .
20/09/2011 .
.
2. 13/12/1988 .
. 13/12/1988

. .

. .

15 | P a g e



,
.
. :()

.
() , ,
,


.
()
,
.
, .
() .........
,
.

. ,
.


,
16 | P a g e

.
,,, , ,
.

1.

.







.

.
2.


.
3.

17 | P a g e



.
4.

54


,
.

,

.
.
5.






.
.

18 | P a g e


1.
.

2. 2105 10/02/2003,
12781 07/05/2012



.
3.
2 . 97 7/12

.
4. -

.
5. 11 2015
.
6. www.scribd.com/adcwardha
.

: 11 2015

Digitally signed by BHAGWAT


SANJAY MADHUKAR
DN: cn=BHAGWAT SANJAY
MADHUKAR, c=IN,
st=Maharashtra, o=GOVT OF
MAHARASHTRA,
ou=Manufacturing,CID - 3688237
Location: Wardha
Date: 2015.06.11 14:54:42 +05'30'

19 | P a g e

8888994004;9423383235;9890463503;9049387894;75881887887;9422143
757;9766934397;9657389648;9422993333;
Pl note that Order is case no 58/RTS-64/12-13; Mauja Savangi Meghe, Tq
Wardha VIVEK CHORE Vs MILIND WAGHMARE and Other is passed
today. The appeal is partially accepted. The details order can be
downloaded from https://www.scribd.com/doc/268247593/
Addl Coll Wardha

20 | P a g e