1/18

Presented on : 21.08.2013
Registered on : 21.08.2013
Decided On : 22.07.2024
Duration : 10Y 11M 01D

IN THE COURT OF JOINT CIVIL JUDGE, SENIOR DIVISION, DHULE.

(Presided over by Shri K. B. Chougule)

Regular Civil Suit No.238/2013. Ex. No.181.

(CNR No. MHDH020013472013)

Pradip Krishna Lingayat,

Age - 44 Years,
Occu: Agriculture/ Business,
R/o.- At post – Vadjai,
Tal. Dist. Dhule.
At present – Surbhi Chappal,
Vishnu Nagar,
PLAINTIFF.
Jai Hind Colony Road, Deopur, Dhule.

.. Versus ..

(1) Uttam Vedu Lingayat (Dead)

Through L.Rs. -
Latabai Santosh Ahire (Daughter),
Age 57 Years, Occ : Household,
R/o.- Mudi, Tal. Amalner,
Dist. Jalgaon.
(2) Madhukar Uttam Lingayat (Dead)
Through L.Rs. -
(2A) Lilabai Madhukar Lingayat,
Age 47 Years, Occ : Household,
R/o.- At post – Vadjai,
Tal. Dist. Dhule.
(2B) Sunil Madhukar Lingayat,
Age 32 Years, Occ : Labour,
R/o.- At post – Vadjai,
Tal. Dist. Dhule.
 ..2/18

(2C) Surekha Vikas Ahire,

Age 28 Years, Occ : Household,
R/o. A/p.– Mudi,
Tal. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.
(2D) Kalpana Sanjay Ahire,
Age 24 Years, Occ : Household,
R/o. A/p.– Mudi,
Tal. Amalner, Dist. Jalgaon.
(2E) Radha Ravindra Vasaikar,
Age 22 Years, Occ : Household,
R/o.A/p.–Saitane,
Tal. Nandurbar, Dist. Nandurbar.
(2F) Reshmabai Uttam Lingayat,
Age 70 Years, Occ : Household,
R/o.- At post – Vadjai,
Tal. Dist. Dhule.
(3) Sub-Registrar, Dhule -2,
Old Collector Office, Dhule.
(4) Faruk Ahmed Abul Hasan,
Age - 45 Years,
Occu: Agriculture/Business,
R/o.- Firdos Nagar, Dhule.
(5) Sub-Registrar, Dhule -1,
Santoshi Mata Chowk, Dhule.
(6) Talathi,
Savalade, Talathi Office,
Savalade, Tal. Dist. Dhule.
(7) Ahmed Abdul Tavvab Ansari,
Age - 49 Years, Occu: Agriculture,
R/o.- Firdos Nagar,
near Urdu High School, Dhule.
(8) Ijhar Ahmed Mukhtar Ahmed,
Age - 27 Years,
Occu: Business / Agriculture,
R/o.- Firdos Nagar, Dhule. DEFENDANTS.

SUIT FOR SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AND ALTERNATIVELY

RECOVERY OF DAMAGES RS.1,00,000/-.
=============================================================
 ..3/18 Reg.Civil Suit No.238/2013
Judgment
Appearances -
Shri. A. S. Jagdeo, Adv. for the Plaintiff.
Shri. P. M. Patil, Adv. for the L.Rs. of Defendant No. 1 and 2.
Shri. L. R. Kakuste, Adv. for the Defendant No.3.
Shri. P. C. Pawar, Adv. for the Defendant No.4.
Shri. A. S. Wagh, Adv. for the Defendant No.5 and 6.
Shri. S. S. Baviskar, Adv. for the Defendant No.7 and 8.
====================================
JUDGMENT
(Delivered on : 22.07.2024)
The plaintiff claims specific performance a registered agreement
of sale of a agricultural property situated at mouje Savalade, Tal. &
Dist. Dhule, having Gat No.79/1, ad-measuring 61 R, of which details
description of boundaries is given in the plaint para No.1, hereinafter
referred to as ‘the suit property’. The suit property is owned and
possessed by defendant No.1. On 03.03.2006 the defendant No.1
agreed to sell the suit property for consideration of Rs.50,000/- and
the plaintiff paid earnest amount of Rs.45,000/- and remaining
amount of Rs.5000/- was agreed to be paid at the time of execution of
registered sale deed. The plaintiff paid remaining amount as per
demand of the defendant no.1, however, he avoided to obtain
necessary permission for sale. The plaintiff alienated the suit property
in favour of defendant No. 4 and thereafter the suit property is sold in
favour of other defendants. It is in this context the plaintiff claims
relief of declaration and specific performance of agreement and
consequential reliefs.

2. The defendant No.1 and 2 submit written-statement vide Ex.26.

They belong to one community and one village. The plaintiff is active
 ..4/18

in village politics and he was also member of village panchayat. The

defendant No.1 and 2 are illiterate. By taking disadvantage their want
of knowledge, a false documents was executed. The defendant No.1
and 2 were told that it was mortgage transaction. The money given by
the plaintiff are repaid. However, the plaintiff did not give any
acknowledgment of receipt of amount. The agreement does not
disclose who would obtain permission from revenue authority for sale
of the suit property. The defendant No.1 and 2 have only property i.e.
the suit property for their livelihood. Considering all facts and
circumstances, dismissal of the suit is prayed.

3. The defendant No.3 submits written-statement vide Ex.27.

There is no cause of action to file the suit against defendant No.3. The
execution of registered agreement of sale dated 03.03.2006 is matter
of record. The suit is not maintainable against defendant No.3,hence,
it is sought to be dismissed. The defendant No.4 submits written-
statement vide Ex.59. All the contentions in the plaint are denied.
The transaction between defendant No.1 and 4 is legal. The sale
permission of the suit property was legally obtained in the name of
defendant No.4. The suit is false and it is filed in suppression of
material facts. Therefore, imposing compensatory cost of
Rs.1,00,000/- dismissal of the suit is prayed. The defendant No.5 and
6 submit written-statement vide Ex.57 and Ex.61. It is stated that, as
per the formalities required for registration the document i.e.
agreement to sell is registered. The other contentions are not relevant,
therefore, appropriate order may be passed.
 ..5/18 Reg.Civil Suit No.238/2013
Judgment
4. The defendant No.7 and 8 submit written-statement vide
Ex.149. On 16.07.2013 the register sale deed of the suit property is
executed by the defendant No.1 in favour of the defendant no.4. The
necessary permission was obtained. The defendants have been in
actual cultivation and possession of the suit property. The plaintiff is
not entitled to specific performance of agreement. The suit is time
barred. Hence, imposing compensatory cost of Rs.1,00,000/- dismissal
of the suit is prayed.

5. The issues are framed vide Exh.81. Thereafter additional issues

were framed vide Exh.151. Those issues and findings along with
reasons thereon are recorded as under:-

Sr. ISSUES FINDINGS

No.
1. Whether the defendant No. 1 agreed to
sell the suit property to the plaintiff for
the consideration of Rs. 50,000/- by
executing an agreement to sale dated
...In the negative.
03.03.2006 ?

2. Whether the plaintiff has paid

Rs.45,000/- to the defendant as earnest
...Partly in the
money at the time of execution of
affirmative.
agreement for sale ?

3. Whether plaintiff is ready and willing to

perform his part of the agreement for ...In the negative.
sale ?
 ..6/18

4. whether plaintiff proves that the sale

deed of the suit property executed by
defendants No. 1 and 2 in favour of
defendant No. 4 is illegal and not binding
on plaintiff ? ...In the negative.

5. Whether the suit is bad for want of notice ......In the negative.
under section 80 of C.P.C. ?

6. Whether the suit is properly valued and ...In the affirmative.

proper court fees is paid ?

7. Whether the suit is in limitation ? ...In the negative.

8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the

relief sought ? If so, what ?
...In the negative.

9. What order and decree ? As per Final Order.

Additional Issues
8-A Whether plaintiff proves that the Sale
Deed of the suit property dated
...In the negative.
09.05.2017 bearing No. 2421/2017
executed by Defendant No. 4 through his
Power of Attorney Defendant No. 7 in
favor of Defendant No. 8 is void, illegal,
bogus and it is not binding on him ?

8-B Is plaintiff entitled to Declaration claimed

in regard the Sale Deed in favor of
...In the negative.
Defendant No. 4 ?
 ..7/18 Reg.Civil Suit No.238/2013
Judgment

8-C Whether plaintiff is entitled to

declaration claimed in regard the Sale
...In the negative.
Deed in favor of defendant No. 7 ?

8-D Whether plaintiff entitled to the

alternative relief of refund of earnest
...In the negative.
money deposit along with interest ? If
yes, at what rate of interest ?

REASONS

AS TO THE ISSUE NO. 1 AND 2 :-

6. On 03.03.2006 the plaintiff and defendant No.1 executed a

registered agreement of sale which is Ex.90. The defendant No.1 and
the defendant No.2 are father and son in their written-statement
which is at Ex.26 contend that due to financial difficulty they
approached plaintiff for help. According to the defendant no.1
transaction was not a agreement of sale, however, the real transaction
was mortgage. The defendant No.1 had no knowledge of the contents
of agreement of sale. When defendants received a legal notice at that
time they came to know about the agreement of sale dated
03.03.2006. They have repaid the amount, however, no
acknowledgment was given by the plaintiff. What defendant No.1
tries to say is that, the document agreement of sale was executed,
however, he was not aware about the contents of it. The plaintiff
misled him and got executed agreement of sale of the suit property.
This clearly indicates that, defendant No.1 admits to have received
Rs.45,000/-. What is disputed is nature of transaction. The careful
scrutiny of evidence demonstrates how the plaintiff had never
 ..8/18

intended to purchase the suit property. Accordingly, the issue No.1 is

answered in the negative and 2 is answered in the partly affirmative.

AS TO THE ISSUE NO. 3 AND 7:-

7. The willingness of the plaintiff to perform contract and issue of

limitation need to be discussed together. The suit property is owned
and possessed by the defendant No.1. The recitals in the agreement
reveal that the prior permission of District Collector was required as
the suit property was having new tenure class II. At the time of
execution of agreement of sale on 03.03.2006 amount of Rs.45,000/-
was paid by the plaintiff and the remaining amount of Rs.5000/- was
agreed to be paid at the time of execution of sale deed. Being relative
the plaintiff trusted defendant No.1. Out of total consideration
Rs.50,000/- the plaintiff paid Rs.45,000/-because the defendant No.1
needed amount for performance of marriage of his niece.

8. It is specific pleading of plaintiff that, the defendant No.1 was

required to obtain necessary permission for sale of the suit property.
On 08.08.2006 the defendant No.1 and 2 had been at Deopur Dhule
at that time they told that for obtaining sale permission some
documents are required. The plaintiff claims to have paid Rs.3000/-to
the defendant No.1. Thereafter, the plaintiff met defendant No.1 on
two to three occasion and sought to know about sale permission. The
defendant No.1 told that, it is the Government work and he being
aged some time would be required, the plaintiff trusted him and did
not make detail inquiry of the permission for sale.
 ..9/18 Reg.Civil Suit No.238/2013
Judgment
9. On 12.03.2007 plaintiff and defendant No.1 met in plaintiff’s
shop at Deopur. The defendant No.1 sought additional amount for
obtaining permission. One Dipak Chawada told plaintiff that, if there
are some requirements for compliance of permission, then the amount
is required, therefore, he told plaintiff to give defendant No.1
Rs.2000/- in cash. Thereafter, whenever plaintiff went at Vadjai where
defendant No.1 stays at that time he used to tell that, permission
would be obtained soon. On 06.05.2010 again the plaintiff was told
by the defendant No.1 that, it is Government work, therefore, time
was required. On 15.10.2012 when the plaintiff went at Vadjai for his
personal work he met the defendant No.1 and inquired about the sale
permission of the suit property. However, defendant No.1 did not
respond positively, therefore, the plaintiff realized dishonest intent of
defendant No.1. Thereafter, when plaintiff tried to know about the
permission at Collector office at that time in a meeting with some
respectable persons namely Lotan Deore and others the defendant
No.1 told that a permission proposal be prepared by plaintiff and he
would sign on it. The defendant No.1 told that, his son i.e. defendant
No.2 is out of village and therefore after his arrival he would sign the
papers.

The limitation for filing a suit for specific performance- as

per Article 54 of the Schedule to The Limitation Act, 1963 is
3 years 'from the date fixed for performance or if no such
date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that the
performance is refused.
 ..10/18

10. The pleadings in the written-statement of the defendant No.1

and 2 reveal that, the plaintiff is reputed person in village. The family
members of the plaintiff were members of village panchayat and
Sarpanch of village. Their financial condition is sound and they have
influence in the village. The suit property was mortgaged in favour of
the plaintiff to meet financial need of family. The plaintiff never
disclosed the real transaction and defendant No.1 thought that it is
mortgage deed. It is specific contention of the defendant No.1 and 2
that, the suit property situated adjacent to the Dhule City and in view
of proposed Surat – Nagpur highway, the plaintiff intended to gain
monetary benefit and with an ulterior motive got executed agreement
of sale. The defendant No.1 and 2 who have raised various
contentions, however, they lead no positive evidence more particularly
regarding repayment. The totality of the facts and circumstances
assumes significance to ascertain the real state of affairs between
parties.

11. The plaintiff has tried to impress that, he continued to expect

the compliance from defendant No.1 and 2 as they belong to same
community and village and therefore he thought that today or
tomorrow they would do the necessary. Despite seeking time the
defendant No.1 did not respond positively. On 07.07.2013 in the
presence of some respectable persons the defendant No.1 was asked
to sign the application for permission of the sale, however, he refused.
It is in this context, the plaintiff states that, on 12.07.2013 a legal
notice was sent to the defendant No.1 and a paper publication was
made in Dainik Aapla Maharashtra on 13.07.2013.
 ..11/18 Reg.Civil Suit No.238/2013
Judgment
12. The cross-examination of the plaintiff reveals that, his mother
was Sarpanch of village Vadjai. The plaintiff and defendant No.1 and
2 belong to village Vadjai. The plaintiff has property at village Vadjai.
In 2006 the plaintiff had seen the suit property. The defendant No.1
had told about the restriction on sale transaction of the suit property.
The plaintiff had met the defendant No.1 nearly 10 to 12 times. The
plaintiff did not approach the defendant No.1 and ask him to sign on
the permission paper. The defendant No.1 is plaintiff’s cousin brother.
During 2006 to 2012 the plaintiff had trust on the defendant No.1
regarding permission of sale of the suit property from the Collector.
When the plaintiff is asked a specific question that, he had no urgency
to purchase the suit property? He specifically denies this suggestion. It
is deposed that, after execution of agreement of sale the suit property
was agreed to be purchased within three years and the application for
sale permission was required to be given within two to four months of
the date of agreement. The plaintiff deposes that it was orally agreed
to obtain permission within two to four months.

13. The does business and agriculture which reflects in the

agreement of sale Ex.90. The plaintiff is not illiterate person. His
mother was Sarpanch of village Vadjai where the suit property
situated. This clearly shows that the sale consideration Rs.50,000/-
was agreed and out of that plaintiff pays Rs.45,000/- to the vendor
i.e. the defendant No.1 and the additional amount was also paid on
demand subsequently though it was agreed at the time of sale. The
oral evidence shows that, the plaintiff paid Rs.5000/-till March 2007
for permission. The plaintiff had been aware about the requirement of
 ..12/18

sale permission from the competent authority. The plaintiff does not
take steps towards obtaining permission. This appears to be quite
unnatural conduct on the part of the plaintiff because he pays entire
amount of the suit property in 2007, does not receive possession of
the suit property still prefers to wait for sale permission for six years
and finally institutes the suit in the August – 2013. In order to
explain the delay in filing the suit and claiming the relief of specific
performance, the plaintiff examines the witnesses in support of talks
between him and the defendant No.1. The plaintiff claims to have
made attempts to pursue the permission from the Collector for
execution of sale deed.

14. The pleadings in the plaint and cross-examination of the

plaintiff clearly help to conclude that the plaintiff had no intention to
purchase the suit property. Had that been his intention to purchase
the suit property then he could have taken some steps towards
obtaining sale permission from the Collector or could have demanded
refund of amount. It is quite improbable when purchaser pays entire
sale consideration of the property, does not demand possession and
still prefers to wait for nearly more than six years. At the time of
agreement of sale dated 03.03.2006 the plaintiff pays Rs.45,000/- out
of agreed sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. In August – 2006 he pays
Rs.3000/- for expenses to obtain sale permission from revenue
authority and in March – 2007 the defendant No.1 is paid Rs.2000/-
for same purpose. There is no subsequent agreement between parties.
The question arises what could have been reasonable period for
obtaining sale permission from the concerned authorities. Plaintiff’s
 ..13/18 Reg.Civil Suit No.238/2013
Judgment
silence for six years after making substantial payment itself indicates
that he had no willingness to purchase the suit property.

15. In view of Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1963, the period of

limitation prescribed for the suit for enforcing right in respect of any
property is three years and fresh period of limitation shall be
computed from the time when the acknowledgment of liability is so
signed. What this section states is that, there is extension of period of
limitation on account of an acknowledgment of liability and such
acknowledgment should be signed. It also states that,
acknowledgment by the defendant must be during subsistence of
prescribed limitation period. In this case there is no written
acknowledgment by the defendant No.1 and 2. Therefore, the suit
cannot be said to have been filed within period of limitation. The
computation of limitation period of three years begins from the date
of execution of agreement of sale because the plaintiff did not make
any attempt which could reflect in documentary evidence to conclude
that he was making attempts to obtain necessary permission from the
revenue authorities. Indeed the time was not essence of contract,
however, the evidence reveals that the plaintiff had no intention to
seek sale permission therefore he remained silent which effectively
means that it was not an agreement of sale. The registered agreement
of sale Exh.90 was for security of repayment.

16. The plaintiff pays the defendant no.1 Rs.50,000/- up to March

2007 and therefore how one could wait and watch for sale deed for
uncertain time and prefer to file suit. After making payment for
 ..14/18

permission for sale the plaintiff did not send notice and ask for either
refund or execution of sale deed. As discussed earlier, the written
acknowledgment could have helped plaintiff to enforce performance
of agreement. The defendant No.1 who is 82 years old at the time of
filing of the suit. At the time of execution of agreement of sale the
defendant no.1 was 75 years old. The question arises when the
plaintiff, who belongs to same village where the defendant No.1
resides, was supposed to be aware about advance age of the vendor of
the suit property, however, why the plaintiff chose to remain silent for
six years. This casts doubt about his willingness to purchase the suit
property. It is on this count also the term reasonable period needs to
be construed. The reasonable period depends on all attending facts
and circumstances. The plaintiff chooses to remain idle and when he
gets knowledge of alienation of suit property in favour of defendant
No.4, he is seen to have woken up and approached the Court to claim
specific performance of agreement. The registration of agreement
itself does not create and confer any substantive right in favour of
party who claims its execution.

17. The learned for the plaintiff relies on the following case law :-

Kaushik Premkumar Mishra & Anr. V/s. Kanji Ravaria @ Kanji &
Anr, in Civil Appeal No.1573 of 2023, dated 19.07.2024.
In this case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, the
doctrine bonafide purchaser for value applies to protect a
subsequent purchaser. If the vendor had already transferred
those rights through a prior sale and when the vendor deceitfully
executes subsequent sale deed without disclosing earlier
transaction and ongoing litigation regarding the property then
the purchaser cannot claim benefit of doctrine bonafide
 ..15/18 Reg.Civil Suit No.238/2013
Judgment
purchaser. The subsequent purchaser even if unaware of the
prior sale, cannot be considered bonafide purchaser because the
vendor no longer had legal right to sell the property. In the
present case, the plaintiff has failed to prove enforceable
agreement of sale, therefore, the transaction of sale entered into
by the vendor and the subsequent transaction of sale cannot be
called in question. Therefore, the above case law does not
support the plaintiff.

18. On 17.07.2013 the defendant No.1 and 2 execute a registered

sale deed in favour of defendant No.4 and the plaintiff files the
present suit on 21.08.2013. The entirety of facts and circumstances
helps to ascertain the intention of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had not
been willing to take necessary steps towards obtaining sale permission
in pursuance of agreement to sell. A ordinary prudent man would not
have remained silent when sale consideration is passed to the vendor.
How did the plaintiff keep the registered agreement in cold storage
since 2006 to 2013 ? The pleadings in respect of meeting of
respectable village persons wherein the defendant no.1 had allegedly
agreed to comply with sale permission are afterthought and intended
to show that he had been diligent to pursue transaction.

19. The defendant no.1 asserts to have repaid the amount

Rs.45,000/-, however, there is no evidence to prove the repayment.
The plaintiff had no intention to purchase the suit property therefore
the condition in the registered agreement in respect of sale permission
has no meaning. The claim of plaintiff regarding refund of earnest
amount seems to be not sustainable because from the last date of
payment the suit was required to be filed within three years. The
alleged last cash payment was made in March 2007 therefore March-
 ..16/18

2010 was last occasion to file the suit. The present suit is filed in
2013 hence it is time barred. Therefore, the issue No.3 and 7 are
answered in negative.

AS TO THE ISSUE NO. 4 TO 6, 8-A TO 8-D AND 9:-

20. The plaintiff is not entitled to specific performance of

agreement, therefore, the execution of sale deed of the suit property
by the defendant No.1 and 2 in favour of defendant No.4 cannot be
held as illegal and not binding on plaintiff. Therefore, the issue No.4
is answered in the negative.

21. The suit is brought against the owner of the suit property who
executed registered agreement of sale in favour of the plaintiff,
however, while claiming the relief the plaintiff has added the
defendant No.3,5,6 who are Sub-Registrar Dhule, Division 1 and 2
and Talathi Savalade, Dist. Dhule. No relief is claimed against them,
therefore, their impleadment as defendants was unwarranted. It is on
this count, failure to issue notice under Section 80 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908, does not bar plaintiff to agitate his case.
Therefore, the issue No.5 is answered in the negative. The objection in
respect of valuation of the Court Fees is not sustainable and it appears
to be vague and nominal. The plaintiff is seen to have paid Court Fees
of Rs.6430/-which is based on valuation of the suit property. The
objection regarding insufficient stamp is vague and misleading.
Therefore, issue No.6 is answered in the affirmative.
 ..17/18 Reg.Civil Suit No.238/2013
Judgment
22. The plaintiff has no vested right in the suit property, therefore,
sale deed dated 09.05.2017 executed by defendant No.4 in favour of
defendant No.8 cannot be declared as void, illegal or bogus. The
plaintiff is not entitled to relief as prayed. The issue of alternative
relief of refund of earnest money is discussed in earlier findings. As
the plaintiff has approached the Court after lapse of limitation period
and therefore, the relief of earnest money cannot be given as it would
amounts to allowing relief against the provisions of law of limitation.
Therefore, the issue No.8-A to 8-D are answered in the negative.

23. The plaintiff files application vide Ex.174 and seeks amendment
of plaint and accordingly a detailed amendment application is filed
vide Ex.175. The proposed amendment was sought following effect of
subsequent sale deeds in the revenue record and claim over
compensation amount paid by authority. It is contended that, the
acquisition proceeding of the suit property was going on and the
plaintiff sought compensation in his favour. However, the concerned
authority has refused it. The application vide Ex.177 is filed for
production of relevant documents in connection with the acquisition
proceeding. All these attempts on the part of the plaintiff are not
relevant for decision of the suit. Since plaintiff has not proved
existence of a valid and legally binding agreement of sale.
Accordingly, these applications are disposed of.

24. The learned Advocate for defendant No.4 submits that, the
agreement of sale could not have been registered as there is
prohibition under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966, Section
 ..18/18

24 states about the classes of persons holding land. The occupants

class-II shall consist of persons who hold un-alienated land subject to
restrictions on the right to transfer. Since this provision does not bar
the execution of agreement to sell. The registration of agreement does
give substantive right to the person in whose favour it is executed, it
only gives right to claim its performance in accordance with terms and
conditions of which genuineness is scrutinized. Therefore, in absence
of specific bar for registration of agreement of sale of Class- II land
there cannot be illegality if agreement is registered. The plaintiff
needs to come with clean hand to claim specific performance of
contract. The evidence on record reveals that, in suppression of real
transaction he seeks relief of specific performance of agreement which
was never intended to be performed by the defendant No.1. It is for
all these reasons, as discussed earlier, the plaintiff is not entitled for
refund of earnest money. In the result, for the issue No.9, following
order is passed.

ORDER

The suit is dismissed with costs.

Digitally signed
KUBER by KUBER
BAPUSO
BAPUSO CHOUGULE
CHOUGULE Date: 2024.07.22
16:44:55 +0530

Dhule. (K. B. Chougule)

Dt. 22.07.2024 Jt. Civil Judge Senior Division,
Dhule.

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the contents of this PDF File are word to word as per Original Judgment.
Name of the Steno : Anant Prakash Wagh,
Name of the Court : Jt. Civil Court (S. D.), Dhule.
PDF Uploading Date : 22.07.2024.
Sd/-
Stenographer (Grade-II)