Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Secondly, having regard to Section 47 thereof, I do not find any merit in the submission of Mr. Mantri that the sale deed is a void transaction. Even if defendant No. 1 Kaveribai did not enter into witness box, it can not be said that the sale deed dated 10/02/1977 is not proved.

27. Mr. Mantri submitted that since the sale deed is null and void, Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain and try the Suit and it is not necessary to initiate proceedings 37 S.A. 391.2010 - [ J ] u/s 98C of the Tenancy Act. I have already held that sale deed is not null and void and at the highest in view of sub section (2) of section 50B, it will be invalid. Section 98C of the Tenancy Act lays down that, where in respect of the permanent alienation, transfer or acquisition of any land made on or after the commencement of the Amending Act, 1957, the Tahsildar suo motu or on the application of any person interested in such land has reason to believe that such alienation, transfer or acquisition is or becomes invalid under any of the provisions of the Act, the Tahsildar has to issue a notice and hold inquiry as provided for in section 98B and decide whether the alienation, transfer or acquisition is or is not invalid. Sub section (2) lays down that if, after holding such inquiry, the Tahsildar comes to the conclusion that the alienation, transfer or acquisition of land is invalid, he has to make an order declaring the alienation, transfer or acquisition to be invalid. Proviso thereof lays down that where the alienation or transfer of land was made by the landholder to the tenant in possession of the land and the area of the land so alienated or transferred together with the area of other land, if any, cultivated personally by the tenant did not exceed three family holdings, the Tahsildar shall not 38 S.A. 391.2010 - [ J ] declare such alienation or transfer to be invalid subject to conditions (i) and (ii) stipulated therein. Sub section (3) lays down that on the declaration made by the Tahsildar under sub section (2), the land shall be deemed to vest in the State Government free from all encumberances lawfully subsisting thereon on the date of such vesting and shall be disposed of in the manner provided in sub section (4).

ig In paragraph 16 of Lachmabai W/o Hanumant and others (supra), it is held that if the Tahsildar declares that the transaction was invalid, then the land vests in the Government and then he did not become owner. Such land is required to be disposed of as per sub section (4). In view of the provisions of Section 98C, 99 and 99-A of the Tenancy Act, in my opinion, Civil Court will have no jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is required to be dealt with under the Tenancy Act. I have already held that even if there is no previous sanction of the Collector before execution of sale deed dated 10/02/1977, the transaction does not become null and void and at the highest it becomes invalid. In view of the provisions of sections 98C, 99 and 99A of the Tenancy Act, Civil Court will have no 39 S.A. 391.2010 - [ J ] jurisdiction to investigate this issue. Mr. Mantri relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Bhimrao S/o Kondiba Bhosale and others (supra) to contend that since the sale deed is null and void, Civil Court will have jurisdiction to entertain and try the Suit. In view of my finding that sale deed is not null and void, decision in the case of Bhimrao does not assist plaintiffs in any manner.

ig Mr. Mantri relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State of Maharashtra (supra) to contend that since the sale deed is null and void, it was not necessary to obtain declaration to that effect. For the reasons already indicated, I have held that sale deed is not null and void.