SAU. USHATAI W/O MADHUKARRAO DESHMUKH v. VITTHALRAO S/O NEELKANTHRAO DESHMUKH

amount of Rs.18,919/-. According to the plaintiff, her father purchased 81 R. agricultural land from the defendant by the sale-deed registered on 18-04-1980. The plaintiff contended that the defendant had taken loan from the Maharashtra State Co-operative Agricultural and Rural Development Bank in 1977 and this amount alongwith interest was not paid by the defendant because of which the bank issued recovery notice and as the plaintiff anticipated coercive action against the property purchased by her father, she deposited the amount of Rs.18,919/- with the bank. According to the plaintiff, the defendant was liable to pay this amount to the bank and as he had not paid, the amount was deposited by the plaintiff and she is entitled to recover that amount from the defendant. The plaintiff filed the civil suit claiming decree for the above amount.

3. The defendant opposed the claim of the plaintiff.

4. The subordinate Courts have concurrently recorded that the plaintiff has failed to establish her entitlement for recovering the amount of Rs.18,919/- from the defendant. The suit filed by the plaintiff is dismissed. The plaintiff being aggrieved in the matter has

2

filed this revision application.

5. Shri M.S. Sambre, learned Advocate for the applicant has submitted that the subordinate Courts have committed an error in observing that the plaintiff has failed to establish her claim as she has not produced the copy of any agreement or sale-deed on the record. It is submitted that the loan was taken by the defendant in 1977 and the property purchased by father of the plaintiff was mortgaged with the bank and this fact is not disputed by the defendant. It is submitted that the land was purchased by the father of the plaintiff in 1980, that is after it was mortgaged. It is submitted that in these circumstances, the liability to pay the amount of Rs.18,919/- to the bank was on the defendant and as the plaintiff anticipated coercive action against the field purchased by her father, she deposited the amount with the bank. Relying on the provisions of Section 55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, it is submitted that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the amount deposited by her with the bank for satisfying the liability of the defendant. In support of the submission, Shri M.S. Sambre, learned Advocate has relied on the judgment given in the case of Govindram Gordhandas Seksaria and another vs. State of Gondal by His

3

Highness the Maharaja of Gondal and others reported in AIR 1950 Privy Council 99. It is prayed that the judgment and decree passed by the subordinate Courts be set aside and the claim of the plaintiff be decreed.

6. Shri A.B. Mirza, learned Advocate for the non- applicant/defendant has submitted that earlier the plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No.55/1992 praying for decree for declaration that the plaintiff is owner of the suit property and the defendant be restrained from interfering with her possession over the suit property. It is submitted that in Regular Civil Suit No.55/1992, the plaintiff never raised the issue that the defendant is liable to pay the amount of Rs.18,919/- to the bank. It is submitted that the findings of fact recorded by the subordinate Courts are based on proper appreciation of material on the record and does not require any interference in the revisional jurisdiction.

7. After considering the submissions made by the learned Advocates for the respective parties, I find that the applicant and the non-applicant are related. The plaintiff is the daughter of the defendant's sister. The filing of Regular Civil Suit No.55/1992 shows

4

that the relations between the parties were strained at that time. According to the plaintiff, she has paid the amount of Rs.18,919/- to the bank on 01-02-1996 i.e. much after the filing of Regular Civil Suit No.55/1992. Considering these facts, in my view, the subordinate Courts have rightly rejected the claim of the plaintiff for failure on the part of the plaintiff to produce the copy of sale-deed on the record. The reliance placed by the learned Advocate for the applicant/plaintiff on the provisions of Section 55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 is misplaced. Section 55(1)(g) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 lays down that in the absence of a contract to the contrary, the seller is bound to pay all the public charges and rent accrued due in respect of the property upto the date of the sale. In the present case, the plaintiff has not produced the copy of sale-deed on the record and therefore, she has failed to show that there is no contract to the contrary. Similarly, Section 69 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 also does not assist the plaintiff as she has failed to prove that the defendant was bound to pay the amount of Rs.18,919/- to the bank. Consequently, the judgment relied upon by the learned Advocate for the applicant/plaintiff also does not assist the plaintiff.

5

8. I do not find any patent irregularity or illegality in the judgments passed by the subordinate Courts. It cannot be said that the subordinate Courts have failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in them or overstepped the jurisdiction. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments passed by the subordinate Courts. The revision application is dismissed. In the circumstances, the parties to bear their own costs.

JUDGE

pma

6