Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. I am afraid it is not possible to accept Mr. Sarkar's contention. It cannot be held that merely because the Mamlatdar has not passed any order holding either that the gift-deed was valid or invalid, or rather because the plaintiff has not produced any such order before the Court, it must be assumed that an order was passed in favour of the plaintiff validating the transfer. In this connection it may be noted that the entire litigation revolves round the question whether the gift-deed effected by Koregaonkars in favour of the plaintiff-Trust is hit by and rendered void under the provisions of said Ss. 63 and 64. The defendant has been crying from house-tops right from the outset that the order is invalid because it Violated those sections. The reply to this plea given by the plaintiff throughout these proceedings has been that the plaintiff-Trust has obtained the exemption certificate under Section 88-B and that that is why the certificate issued under Section 32-G by the Agricultural Lands Tribunal was invalid. The burden of plaintiff's song is that Sections 63 and 64 of the Tenancy Act cannot apply in view of the exemption certificate. At no time even a faintest attempt has been made by the plaintiff to contend that the consequences incurred by the plaintiff-Trust by virtue of the provisions of Sections 63 and 64 was wiped out by virtue of proceedings taken by the plaintiff under Section 84-A or by virtue of any order passed by the Mamlatdar under Section 84-A (3) of the Act. Nowhere it is contended that the transfer which was initially invalid has been got validated by the plaintiff-Trust. It is, therefore, impossible to accept Mr. Sarkar's contention that a presumption should be raised that the plaintiff-Trust has paid the amount and has got the gift-deed validated. Whether the gift has been validated or not is a question of fact. That fact has got to be pleaded and proved. That fact cannot be a matter of assumption.