http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: SHEVANTABAI MARUTI KALHATKAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAMU RAKHAMAJI KALHATKAR & ANR.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       15/10/1998

BENCH: G.T.NANAVATI, S.P.KURDUKAR

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:  JUDGMENT Nanavati,J. This appeal filed by the original owner of th  esuit land  is  directed against the judgment of the High Court of Bombay in Second Appeal No. 221/83. Pursuant to an agreement of sale, the appellant sold the suit land to the respondents  under  a  registered  sale deed.  On  the  basis  of  the  sale  in  their  favour  the respondents filed a suit for possession in the Court of  the Civil  judge, Junior division, khed. The Trial Court decreed the suit in spite of the objection raised by  the  plaintiff that  the  sale  transaction  was  void  as  the  land was a fragment and sale of such and is prohibited under The Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and  Consolidation  of  Holdings Act, 1947. Aggreived  by  the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court the appellant preferred an appeal to  the  Court of Extra Assistant  Judge.    Pune.    The learned Assistant Judge allowed the appeal as he was of the opinion  that  the sale  transaction was void and therefore the respondents did not derive  any  title  to  the  land   thereunder.      The respondents  approached  the High Court and their appeal has been allowed. The only contention raised by  the  learned  counsel for the appellant is that the land being a agent the sale in favour  of  the  respondents  was  void and therefore it was rightly declared by the first Appellate Court to be so.   We find no   substance  in  this  contention.    The  Competent Authority, on a reference being made  to  it  by  the  Trial Court  under  Section 36B of the Act, had held that the sale is valid.  The High Court was  therefore  right  in  holding that  it  was not open to the First Appellate Court, being a Civil Court, to go behind the order passed by the  competent authority.    Section   36   A   of  the  Act  clearly  bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court to settle,  decide  or  deal with  any  question which is by or under the Act required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the State Government or any officer or authority. The  appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No order as to costs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2