Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. Both the parties led oral and documentary evidence before the Cooperative Court. Although the widow of Govinda Raut, being one of the disputants, submitted an affidavit of evidence in the said Court, she did not appear for being cross- examined by the respondents and hence, her evidence was discarded. One of the daughters, also being a disputant and KHUNTE petitioner before this Court, appeared as a witness in support of the claim of the petitioners. It was pointed out that respondent No.2 was not justified in basing his claim on the aforesaid alleged document of transfer deed executed by the widow of Govinda Raut dated 04/05/1998, which was a notarized document and the alleged will deed dated 29/10/1999, being a registered document executed by the widow of Govinda Raut. The said witness supported the claim made in the dispute on the basis that the disputants were the legal heirs of Govinda Raut and that respondent No.2 had no right to interfere with their right, title and interest in the said plot. On the other hand, on behalf of respondent No.1-society, the secretary appeared as a witness. He deposed in respect of the letter received from the deceased Govinda Raut for transfer of the said plot to respondent No.2 and he was cross-examined on the question of the manner in which the resolution was passed by the society in favour of respondent No.2, as also the effect of the registered sale deed dated 27/09/1982 executed in favour of Govinda Raut.

8. Mr. S.V.Sohoni, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, has submitted that the concurrent orders passed by the two Courts below are unsustainable because the documents on record and the evidence, particularly that of the secretary of respondent No.1-society, was not correctly appreciated by the two Courts below. It was pointed out that Govinda Raut became owner of the plot in question by way of registered sale deed executed by the society on 27/09/1982. The relevant clause in the said registered sale deed categorically stated that the interest and rights of the society stood extinguished by virtue of the said document. According to the learned counsel, once the society had lost interest or right in the plot in question, there was no way in which, it could have either entertained the request of transfer of the said plot in favour of respondent No.2 or executed any document or resolution in favour of the said respondent. According to the learned counsel, upon the death of Govinda Raut on 11/06/1986, the petitioners being legal heirs had become KHUNTE owners of the said plot and, therefore, respondent No.2 was the trespasser. It was pointed out that the Courts below erred in holding that the petitioners were required to challenge the will deed as it was registered document, because the person, who had allegedly executed the will deed, herself was before the Cooperative Court stating that any claim made by respondent No.2 was fraudulent and in any case the will deed would have come into operation upon the death of the said person. It was further pointed out that the alleged transfer deed dated 04/05/1998 said to have been executed by the widow Govinda Raut was only notarized document, which could not in law have the effect of transfer of the plot in favour of respondent No.2. It was submitted that when the said widow of Govinda Raut was herself disputant No.1 before the Cooperative Court, the Courts below were not justified in holding in favour of respondent No.2. On this basis, it was submitted that the petition deserved to be allowed.

16. As regards the alleged transfer deed dated 04/05/1998, admittedly it was a notarized document and not a registered one. Therefore, it could never be any transfer of the immovable property in favour of respondent No.2 by virtue of the alleged transfer deed. Even otherwise, the person, who had allegedly executed the said document i.e. the widow of Govinda Raut had disputed it and claimed before the Cooperative Court KHUNTE 1312wp206.17-Judgment 17/18 that it was obtained in a fraudulent manner by respondent No.2. In the face of such material, the Courts below were not justified in relying upon the said documents and holding that the petitioners were required to challenge the said documents to prove their claim.