Himatsing Dhansing Rajput vs Sonu Devsing Rajput on 24 July, 1953
I am unable to understand how the decision in Himatsing Dhansing v. Sonu (A) could apply to the facts of the present case. All that was decided in that case was that, if a transfer was made contrary to the provisions of Section 40, Bombay Agricultural Debtors Relief Act, 1947, it was void and conveyed no title to the transferee. With respect there could be no dispute about the proposition laid down in that case and indeed the principle is not disputed by Mr. Tarkunde for the appellants. The point which is pressed by Mr. Tarkunde is as to the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to determine whether a particular sale-deed is or is not hit by the provisions of Section 40, B.A.D.R. Act. Mr. Tarkunde says that it is only ths Court established under the B.A.D.R. Act which can go into the question whether a particular transaction of sale is or is not hit by the provisions of Section 40, B.A.D.R. Act.