Bombay High Court
Sakhahari Dagdu Ghule And Others vs President Swarajya Shikshan Sanstha ... on 25 January, 2021
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2021 BOM 3154
Author: V.K. Jadhav
Bench: V.K. Jadhav
1 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.12521 OF 2019
1. Sakhahari S/o. Dagdu Ghule,
Age : 70 years, Occu. Agri.,
2. Ramdas S/o. Pandurang Ghule,
Age : 51 years, Occu. Agri.,
3. Adesh S/o. Prabhakar Ghule,
Age : 22 years, Occu. Agri.,
4. Prabhakar S/o Vithoba Ghule,
Age : 56 years, Occu. Agri.,
All R/o. Bajarsawangi, Tq. Khultabad,
District Aurangabad.
5. Ambadas S/o Abaji Mankape Patil,
Age : 78 years, Occu. Agri. & Business,
R/o. Plot No.31, Shivjyoti Colony,
N-6, Cidco, Aurangabad
Chairman Adarsh Nagari Co-op.
Society Ltd., Aurangabad. ..Petitioners..
VERSUS
President, Swarajya Shikshan Sanstha
Aurangabad, Through it's Principal
Dr. Sanjay Tukaram Gaikwad,
Age : 68 years, Occu. Retired Principal,
R/o. Plot No.20, Nandanvan Colony,
Aurangabad. ...Respondent..
...
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.12545 OF 2019
Ambadas S/o. Abaji Mankape Patil,
Age : 78 years, Occu. Agri. & Business,
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
2 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
R/o. Plot No.31, Shivjyoti Colony,
N-6, Cidco, Aurangabad
Chairman Adarsh Nagari Co-op.
Society Ltd., Aurangabad. ... Petitioners..
VERSUS
President, Swarajya Shikshan Sanstha
Aurangabad Through it's Principal
Dr. Sanjay Tukaram Gaikwad,
Age : 68 years, Occu. Retired Principal,
R/o. Plot No.20, Nandanvan Colony,
Aurangabad. ..Respondent..
...
Advocate for Petitioners : Mr. Garud V. B.
Advocate for Respondent : Dr. S D Tawshikar
(In both writ petitions)
...
CORAM : V.K. JADHAV, J.
Dated : January 25, 2021
...
PER COURT :-
1. Heard fnally with the consent of the parties, at
admission stage.
2. The respondent/original plaintiff (hereinafter
called as 'Sanstha') has instituted a civil suit bearing
Regular Civil Suit No.29 of 2018 in the Court of Civil
Judge J.D. Khultabad against the petitioners herein for
a decree of perpetual injunction in respect of the suit
land bearing gat no.767 admeasuring 4 Hector 60R to
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
3 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
the extent of 65R land situated at village Bajar Sawangi,
Tq. Khultabad, District Aurangabad. The respondent
Sanshta/original plaintiff has purchased the suit land
from petitioner no.1 Sakhahari Dagadu Ghule (original
defendant no.1) through a registered sale deed dated
16.1.2009. Initially, the respondent/original plaintiff has
purchased 0Hector 70R land from the petitioner no.1
Sakhahari Ghule out of the land gat no.767 alongwith
third share in the water of the well. However, it was
revealed that mistakenly land was mentioned as 70R
instead of 65R. Accordingly, correction deed was
executed on 26.8.2009 and four boundaries of the land
admeasuring 65 R of land are the same as mentioned in
the original sale-deed. It is clarifed in the correction-
deed that other details of the original sale-deed are true
and correct and no change is made with respect to those
particulars. Thereafter, mutation entries with respect to
the sale-deed dated 16.1.2009 as well as correction deed
dated 26.8.2009 are duly recorded in the 7/12 extract of
the land gat no.767. The respondent was enjoying the
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
4 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
suit property peacefully since the date of purchase
without any obstruction or interference.
3. It is the case of the respondent/original plaintiff
that with oblique intention defendant no.1 Sakhahari in
collusion with defendant nos.2 to 4 prepared a false and
fabricated document of Vatanipatra on a stamp of
Rs.100/- and thereby partitioned 13R land amongst
defendant nos.2 Ramdas and 4 Prabhakar. It reveals
from the said Vatnipatra that defendant no.1 Sakhahari
Ghule has given 6½ R land each to defendant Ramdas
and defendant Prabhakar and as such 0H 13 R land
pretended to have been allotted to them by way of said
'Vatanipatra'. It is not a registered document.
Thereafter, said defendants have sold their said share in
favour of defendant no.5 by executing a registered sale-
deed dated 20.4.2018. According to the
respondent/plaintiff, defendants tried to encroach the
land owned and possessed by the respondent on the
basis of false and fabricated Vatanipatra, so also the
sale-deed dated 20.4.2018. The respondent, thus
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
5 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
constrained to institute the suit for a decree of perpetual
injunction.
4. The petitioners/original defendants appeared in
the suit and resisted it by fling written statement as
well as the Counter-claim. Even, the petitioners/original
defendant no.5 has also fled an application seeking
temporary injunction in his counter-claim, belatedly.
According to the petitioners/defendants, petitioner no.1-
Sakhahari was intending to sell 50R of land out of gat
no.767. However, respondent/plaintiff got executed the
sale-deed for the area admeasuring 70R from petitioner
no.1-Sakhahari under the pretext that
respondent/Sanstha requires more area on document
for the purpose of getting grants for construction of the
building from the Government. Petitioner no.1/original
defendant no.1 believed the words of the respondent and
executed registered sale-deed of the area admeasuring
70R, but, in fact, possession of 50R land was given to
the respondent-Sanstha. Further, at the instance of the
respondent/plaintiff correction deed has been executed.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
6 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
According to the petitioners/defendants on 11.12.2009
petitioner no.1 has executed partition-deed of the land
admeasuring 13R land towards Southern-East corner of
the land gat no.767 in favour of the petitioner nos.2 and
4 and thereafter petitioner no.4 has executed partition
deed of the area admeasuring 6½ R of the suit land in
favour of his son petitioner no.3. On the basis of the
said partition deed dated 11.12.2009 and 06.02.2018
mutation entries came to be sanctioned in the name of
petitioner nos.2 to 4. On 20.4.2018 petitioner nos.2 and
4 have executed the registered sale-deed of the area
admeasuring 13R in favour of the petitioner no.5 and
necessary mutation came to be sanctioned in the name
of petitioner no.5. After the said sale-deed, petitioner
no.5 permitted the petitioner nos.2 to 4 to continue
their residence till the alternate arrangement is made
alongwith a place for animals and agricultural
equipments. According to the petitioners, after execution
of the said sale-deed, petitioner no.5 covered the
purchased area of land admeasuring 13R by erecting a
tin shed.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
7 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
5. The respondent/plaintiff has fled an application
Exh.5 for issuance of the temporary injunction to
protect its possession over the suit property, whereas
petitioner no.5 has fled counter-claim and in the
counter-claim petitioner no.5 has fled an application
Exh.22 for temporary injunction. After hearing both the
sides, the learned Civil Judge J.D. Khultabad by a
common order passed below Exh.5 and Exh.22 in R.C.S.
No.29 of 2018 rejected both the applications.
6. Being aggrieved by the same the
respondent/original plaintiff has preferred M.C.A.
No.145 of 2018 and the petitioners/original defendant
no.5 has preferred M.C.A. No.146 of 2018. After hearing
both the sides, by impugned order dated 10.07.2019 the
learned District Judge-4, Aurangabad has allowed the
M.C.A. No.145 of 2018 fled by the respondent/plaintiff
and thereby restrained the petitioners/defendants from
obstructing the possession of respondent/plaintiff over
the suit land as described in paragraph no.2 of the
plaint. Learned District Judge has dismissed the
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
8 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
M.C.A.No.146 of 2018 preferred by the
petitioner/original defendant no.5. Being aggrieved by
the same, the petitioners have preferred Writ Petition
No.12521 of 2019, whereas the said petitioner Ambadas
Abaji Mankape/original defendant no.5 has preferred
the Writ Petition no.12545 of 2019.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the petitioner no.1 in fact has sold 50R of the land to
respondent/plaintiff (Sanstha) for the purpose of
establishment of the College, however, the sale-deed
came to be executed showing excess area for the reason
that the respondent/Sanstha wanted the excess area on
paper for the purpose of completing various formalities
including the grants to be obtained from the
Government for construction of the building. Learned
counsel submits that petitioner no.1 is unsophisticated
and pious person and believing the words of the
respondent had executed the registered sale-deed
mentioning the excess area in the document as desired
by the respondent. Learned counsel submits that, for
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
9 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
the same reason since the petitioner no.1 came to know
about the consequences of the registered sale-deed,
correction deed came to be executed reducing the area
from 70R to 65R. However, at the request of the
respondent as against the area admeasuring 50R, the
area of 65R was shown in the correction-deed. On
11.12.2019 petitioner/defendant no.1 had executed the
partition deed and allotted the share admeasuring 13R
out of the land gat no.767 to petitioner/defendant no.2
Ramdas Ghule and petitioner no.4-Prabhakar Vithoba
Ghule admeasuring 6½R each. The petitioner/defendant
no.4 has entered the name of his son petitioner no.3
Aadesh Ghule in respect of his share. Thereafter, the
petitioners/defendant nos. 2 and 4 have sold their 13R
of land to petitioner/defendant no.5 Ambadas under the
registered sale-deed for a valuable consideration.
Learned counsel submits that the petitioner no.5's claim
is based on the registered sale-deed executed in his
favour for a valuable consideration. He has covered the
land sold to him by erecting a tin shed. There are
documents such as electricity bills, etc., to show the
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
10 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
possession of the petitioner/defendant no.5 over the
land admeasuring 13R out of the land gat no.767.
Learned counsel submits that undisputedly the
petitioner no.1-Sakhahari is owner in possession of the
land gat no.767 to the extent of 99.5 R land and out of
the said land, even assuming that 65R of land is sold
under the registered sale-deed to the respondent-
original plaintiff, the remaining land comes to 34R land
out of the land gat no.767 still owned and possessed by
petitioner/defendant no.1. The petitioner nos.2 and 4
acquired the title of the land ad-measuring 13R out of
the remaining land owned and possessed by petitioner
no.1 under the partition-deed and, as such, the
document i.e. the sale-deed executed in favour of
petitioner/defendant no.5 cannot be doubted.
Petitioner/defendant no.5 has placed on record the
affdavits of the adjacent land holders supporting his
case about his possession over the suit land
admeasuring 13R land as per his counter-claim. In view
of the same, the lower appellate court should have
allowed the application Exh.22 fled by the
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
11 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
petitioner/defendant no.5 seeking temporary injunction
and rejected the application fled by the respondent at
Exh.5.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that
the lower appellate Court has considered the provisions
of section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act and observed
that as per section 91 of the Evidence Act, which is a
best evidence, in terms of the contract has been reduced
in writing, in respect of a transaction required by law to
be reduced in writing, no oral evidence shall be allowed
in terms of such contract. Learned counsel submits
that it is well settled that even if formal execution of
document is proved, same by itself cannot lead to a
presumption. Mere execution of a document does not
lead to conclusion that recital made therein are correct
and subject to the statutory provision contained in
sections 91 and 92 of the Act, it is open to the parties to
raise a plea contra.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
12 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in order to
substantiate his submissions, placed reliance on the
following cases :-
(a) Niranjan Kumar and others Vs. Dhyan Singh
and another reported in 1976 (4) SCC 89.
(b) Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thedani reported in
2003 AIR (SC) 2418.
(c) Gangamma and others Vs. Shivalingaiah
reported in 2005(9) SCC 359.
(d) Manohar Pamandas Jani Vs. Madhukar Trimbak
Waychal and others reported in 2017(1) ALL MR
102.
(e) Vithal Saidu Lokhande Vs. Rama Mahadev Gund
Since (D) thr. Lrs. and others reported in 2015(1)
ALL MR 324.
(f) Mukesh S/o. Ashok Sonar Vs. Maya W/o
Dashrath Sadawarte reported in 2014(7) ALL MR
561.
(g) Tulsi and others Vs. Chandrika Prasad and
others reported in 2007 ALL SCR 39.
(h) Shankarlal Ganulal Khandelwal Vs. Balmukund
Surajmal Bharuka reported in 1999(2) ALL MR
85.
10. Learned counsel for respondent/plaintiff submits
that the respondent/Sanstha (original plaintiff) has
purchased the suit land from petitioner no.1 Sakhahari
Dagadu Ghule through a registered sale-deed dated
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
13 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
16.1.2019 and the said sale-deed reveals that
respondent has purchased 0H 70R of land out of the
land gat no.767 situated at village Bajar Sawangi Tq.
Khultabad, District Aurangabad alongwith one third
share in the water of well for a valuable consideration.
The sale-deed bears four boundaries of the land and it
has been specifcally mentioned Government road
towards east. However, due to typographical mistake,
the area of the land was mentioned as 70R instead of
65R and, accordingly, correction deed was executed on
26.8.2009. Thereafter, respondent/plaintiff has made
huge construction of the college building over the suit
land by keeping parking place etc.
11. Learned counsel for the respondent further
submits that petitioner no.1-Sakhahari with some
oblique intention has partitioned the land admeasuring
13R land in favour of the petitioner/defendant Ramdas
and petitioner/defendant Prabhakar to the extent of 6½
R each. Learned counsel submits that in the year 1981
itself there was a partition of the ancestral land between
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
14 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
three bothers namely i] Pandurang Dagadu ii] Vithoba
Dagadu and iii] Sakhahari Dagadu (present petitioner
no.1) in respect of the ancestral land including the suit
land gat no.767. All the three bothers got equal share of
5 Aana 4 Pai in the ancestral lands. Petitioner/original
defendant no.2 Ramdas and defendant no.4-Prabhakar
are the nephews of petitioner no.1 Sakhahari Ghule and
there was no reason for him to partition his land
amongst his nephews, since petitioner no.1 is having his
own son. Learned counsel submits that the so-called
partition deed came to be executed on 11.12.2009. It is
pertinent that as per the boundaries shown in the said
unregistered partition deed, towards Eastern side the
Government road is shown, however, towards the
western side the college building of the
respondent/plaintiff is shown, whereas, towards North
side the road goes to the respondent no.4 College is
shown. Learned counsel submits that it is pertinent
that in the original sale-deed dated 16.1.2009 and in the
correction deed dated 26.8.2009 in the boundaries
nowhere remaining land of the petitioner no.1-
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
15 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
Sakhahari (vendor of the sale-deed) has been shown.
Learned counsel submits that said nephews of the
petitioner no.1 i.e. petitioner no.4 Prabhakar and
petitioner no.2 Ramdas are the witnesses on the
correction deed. Learned counsel submits that after the
so called partition deed, there was no interference into
the peaceful possession of the respondent/plaintiff over
the purchased area, however, in the year 2018 petitioner
nos.2 and 4 stated to have been sold the land
admeasuring 13R of their share to petitioner/defendant
no.5, and, accordingly on the strength of the said false
sale-deed petitioners have tried to obstruct the
possession of the respondent/Sanstha over the suit
land. Respondent/Sanstha has preferred to lodge a
complaint in the police station. Petitioners are not only
trying to obstruct the possession of the plaintiff, but
they are trying to create nuisance to the students taking
education in the Institution.
12. Learned counsel for respondent/original plaintiff
submits that the appellate Court has rightly considered
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
16 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
the provisions of section 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act.
Section 91 is based on what is sometimes described as
the "best evidence about rule" and the best evidence
about contents of a document is the document itself and
it is the production of the document that is required by
section 91 in proof of its contents. It excludes the
admission of oral evidence by proving the contents of
the document except in a case where secondary
evidence is allowed to be led under the relevant
provisions of Evidence Act. Section 92 excludes the
evidence of oral agreement or statement for the purpose
of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from
its terms. Learned counsel submits that there is no
substance in both these writ petitions and both the writ
petitions are thus liable to be dismissed.
13. Learned counsel for the respondent, in order to
substantiate his contentions, placed his reliance on
following cases :-
(a) Bai Hira Devi and others Vs. The Offcial Assignee
of Bombay, reported in AIR 1958 SC 448.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
17 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
(b) Dalpat Kumar and others Vs. Prahland Singh and
others reported in AIR 1993 SC 276.
14. I have carefully considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the respective parties.
With their able assistance, I have perused the pleadings,
the grounds taken in the petition, annexures thereto
and the reply fled by the respondent.
15. It is the case of the respondent/plaintiff that the
land admeasuring 70R out of land gat no.767 was
purchased under the registered sale-deed dated
16.1.2009 for a valuable consideration from
petitioner/defendant Sakhahari Dagadu alongwith one
third share in the water of the well. It further appears
that the correction-deed was thereafter carried out in
the Month of August i.e. on 26.8.2009 for correcting the
area as 65 R of land instead of 70R land. In both the
documents, boundaries and other contents are the
same. Prima facie, it is diffcult to believe that though
petitioner/original defendant no.1 Sakhahari, who
claims to be unsophisticated person has believed the
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
18 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
words of the respondent and shown excess area in the
sale-deed to facilitate the respondent/Sanstha to
complete the paper work for obtaining the grants.
However, in the correction deed also instead of
correcting the area as 50R, it was corrected to the
extent of 65R only. It is also pertinent that, even
though, there was a partition of the ancestral land way
back in the year 1981 amongst the brothers of
petitioner/defendant no.1 Sakhahari including the suit
land gat no.767, the petitioner/defendant no.1
Sakhahari has partitioned his remaining land to the
extent of 13R and allotted a share of 6½ R each to the
petitioner Prabhakar and petitioner Ramdas, who are
his nephews.
16. It is necessary to repeat here that as against the
contents in writing in the registered document, the
petitioner no.1 is coming with the oral agreement about
the selling of an area to the extent of 50R to the
respondent/plaintiff as against the actual area shown in
the sale-deed and correction deed to the extent of 65R.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
19 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
In the backdrop of these pleadings, boundaries shown
in the sale deed/correction deed and said partition deed
executed in favour of the nephews by petitioner
Sakhahari are important :-
A]. Boundaries as shown in the sale deed dated
16.1.2009 and correction deed dated
26.8.2009.
East :- Government road.
West :- Agricultural land of Govind
Sukhaji Gaikwad.
South:- Agricultural land of Pandharinath
Nana Ghule.
North:- Agricultural land of Vithoba
Ghule
B]. Boundaries as shown in the partition deed
dated 11.12.2009.
East :- Government road.
West :- Building of Swarajya Shikshan
Sanstha (respondent/plaintiff)
South:- Agricultural land of Pandharinath
Nana Ghule.
North:- Road leading to Swarajya
Shikshan Sanstha.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
20 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
17. The dates of the aforesaid documents are
important. Sale-deed was executed on 16.1.2009 by
petitioner no.1-Sakhahari in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff for the land admeasuring 70R.
Thereafter, correction deed was executed on 26.8.2009
correcting the area of the land as 65R land as against
70R land shown in the sale-deed. The said unregistered
document of the partition-deed was executed on
11.12.2009. It is pertinent that there was no interference
in the suit land of the respondent/plaintiff for years
together till the sale-deed of the said 13R of the land
executed (area as shown in the so-called partition deed
dated 11.12.2009) in favour of the petitioner no.5 under
the registered sale deed dated 20.4.2018. It is interesting
to reproduce herein below the boundaries of the said
sale deed executed in favour of petitioner/defendant
no.5.
East :- Government road.
West :- Sayajirao Gaikwad College
(Respondent/plaintiff)
South:- Agricultural land of Karbhari
Himmatrao Thorat.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
21 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
North:- Sayajirao Gaikwad College
(respondent/plaintiff)
18. The said boundaries are also not in consonance
with the boundaries mentioned in the said unregistered
document of the partition deed.
19. Prima facie, it appears that with some oblique
intention the document of said partition deed has been
created wherein the land admeasuring 13R shown to
have been allotted to the petitioner no.2-Ramdas and
petitioner no.4-Prabhakar by petitioner no.1-Sakhahari
Dagadu Ghule. Said Petitioner Ramdas and Prabhakar
are the nephews of petitioner Sakhahari Dagadu Ghule.
It has come on record that the petitioner Sakhahari has
his own family and son, however, as per the said
partition deed, the land shown to have been allotted to
the nephews. As per the partition of the year 1981, all
the three brothers including the petitioner Sakhahari
got equal shares in the ancestral properties including
the suit land gat no.767. I do not fnd any justifcation
even prima facie for allotment of the land by preparing
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
22 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
unregistered document of the partition in favour of the
nephews by petitioner no.1 Sakhahari Ghule. Though,
petitioner Sakhahari has got his remaining land
admeasuring 34R of land in the land gat no.767,
however, as per the boundaries shown in the original
sale-deed/correction-deed, the remaining land of the
petitioner Sakhahari Ghule admeasuring 34R of land is
not adjacent to the land from any side sold to the
respondent/plaintiff. In view of the same, prima facie, it
appears that petitioner no.1 as against the contents of
the registered document propounded a theory of actual
area sold to the respondent/plaintiff and area shown in
the sale-deed and under that pretext there seems to be
an attempt to disturb the possession of the respondent/
Sanstha.
20. I have carefully gone through the ratio laid down
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case i] Gangamma
and others Vs. Shivalingaiah reported in 2005 (9) SCC
page 359 and ii] Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan Thedani
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
23 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
reported in 2003 AIR SC 2418 relied upon by the
learned counsel for the petitioners.
21. So far as the case at serial no.i] is concerned by
referring the provisions of Section 90 of the Indian
Evidence Act as to the presumption of recitals contained
in the document, the Supreme Court has observed that
"mere execution of the document in other words does
not lead to the conclusion that recitals made therein are
correct and subject to the statutory provision contained
in sections 91 and 92 of the Act, it is open to the parties
to raise a plea contra."
22. In the second case Roop Kumar Vs. Mohan
Thedani, in paragraph nos. 18, 19 and 20 the Supreme
Court has made following observations :-
"18 In Section 92 the legislature has prevented oral
evidence being adduced for the purpose of varying
the contract as between the parties to the contract;
but, no such limitations are imposed under Section
91. Having regard to the jural position of Sections 91
and 92 and the deliberation omission from Section 91
of such words of limitation, it must be taken note of
that even a third party if he wants to establish a
particular contract between certain others, either
when such contract has been reduced to in a
document or where under the law such contract has
to be in writing, can only prove such contract by the
production of such writing.
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
24 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
19. Sections 91 and 92 apply only when the document on
the face of it contains or appears to contain all the
terms of the contract. Section 91 is concerned solely
with the mode of proof of a document which
limitation improved by Section 92 relates only to the
parties to the document. If after the document has
been produced to prove its terms under Section 91,
provisions of Section 92 come into operation for the
purpose of excluding evidence of any oral agreement
or statement for the purpose of contradicting,
varying, adding or subtracting from its terms.
Sections 91 and 92 in effect supplement each other.
Section 91 would be inoperative without the aid of
Section 92, and similarly Section 92 would be
inoperative without the aid of Section 91.
20. The two sections are, however, differ in some material
particulars. Section 91 applies to all documents,
whether they purport to dispose of rights or not,
whereas Section 92 applies to documents which can
be described as dispositive. Section 91 applies to
documents which are both bilateral and unilateral,
unlike Section 92 the application of which is confned
to only to bilateral documents. (See: Bai Hira Devi
and Ors. vs. Offcial Assignee of Bombay AIR 1958 SC
448). Both these provisions are based on "best
evidence rule". In Bacon's Maxim Regulation 23, Lord
Bacon said "The law will not couple and mingle
matters of speciality, which is of the higher account,
with matter of averment which is of inferior account
in law". It would be inconvenient that matters in
writing made by advice and on consideration, and
which fnally import the certain truth of the
agreement of parties should be controlled by
averment of the parties to be proved by the uncertain
testimony of slippery memory."
23. However, in the instant case, prima facie, it is
diffcult to accept the reasons given by the
petitioners/defendants about the excess area shown in
the sale deed/correction deed as against the land sold
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
25 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
to respondent/plaintiff. Section 91 is based upon the
best evidence principle and it excludes the admission of
oral evidence for proving the contents of the documents
except in cases where secondary evidence is allowed to
be led under the relevant provisions of the Evidence Act.
The other circumstances as discussed above are in
favour of the respondent/plaintiff. The respondent/
plaintiff has proved prima facie case. The balance of
convenience certainly lies in favour of the
respondent/plaintiff Educational Institution. It is
pertinent that only after execution of the alleged sale
deed in favour of the petitioner/defendant no.5 or the
petitioner in writ petition no.12545 of 2019, the evidence
about electricity supply seems to have been created.
Thus, considering the entire aspects of the case, I do not
fnd any error of law in the impugned order passed by
the learned District Judge-4, Aurangabad. Hence, I
proceed to pass the following order.
ORDER
Writ petition No.12521 of 2019 and 12545 of 2019 are hereby dismissed. No costs. aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
26 WP 12521.2019+1.odt
24. At this stage, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the interim order passed by this Court remained in force for a considerable period, and, in view of the same, the effect of this order may be stayed for a period of four weeks from today, so as to enable the petitioners to approach the Supreme Court.
25. In view of the above submissions and since the interim order passed by this Court directing the parties to maintain status-quo remained in force for a considerable period, the effect of this order is stayed for a period of FOUR WEEKS from today, so as to enable the petitioners to approach the Apex Court, if so desired.
( V.K. JADHAV, J. ) ...
aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::
27 WP 12521.2019+1.odt 6½ R aaa/-
::: Uploaded on - 28/01/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 08/02/2021 21:19:17 :::