1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD SECOND APPEAL NO. 145/2010 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 3400/2010 Amrapali Magasvargiya Gruhanirman Sanstha Maryadit, Jalna through : Its Chairman, Sudhakar Ratanrao Ratnaparkhe, Age : 35 years, Occu. Business, R/o Mhada Colony, Pach Ambadevi, Ambad Road, Jalna Tq & Dist. Jalna. ...Appellant. Versus 1. Saraswatibai Shrirang Ugale, Age : 54 years, Occu. Household, R/o Bavne Pangri, Tq & Dist. Jalna. 2. Nirmalabai Gulabrao More, Age : 50 years, Occu. Household, R/o Chandanzira, Tq & Dist. Jalna. 3. Urmila Raosaheb Mhaske, Age : 30 years, Occu. Household, R/o Deomurti, Tq & Dist. Jalna. ....Respondents. Mr. P.G. Godhamgaonkar, Advocate for appellant. Mr. B.R. Kedar, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3. CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J. Date : 11th August, 2010. 2 ORAL JUDGMENT:- 1 This appeal is filed against the concurrent judgments of the Courts below dismissing the appellant’s suit. The appellant's suit was filed only for perpetual injunction to restrain the respondents from alienating the suit land. The suit land was in possession of the respondents' father Kachru. Kachru had obtained occupancy rights to the land pursuant to certain order passed under the provisions of the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code. As per the provisions of that Code Kachru was to occupy land and was prevented from selling land without prior permission of the Collector. Despite this, Kachru agreed to sell this land to the appellant co-operative Society. The co- operative society got an unregistered sale deed executed from Kachru some time in 1999. They lodged this document for registration and after five years, they got the document registered. In the mean time, Kachru and the appellant Society moved an application to the Collector for seeking permission to alienate the land. During the pendency of such application, Kachru died. Kachru's widow was made party to said application. She also gave her consent. She also indicated to the Collector that she had no objection for the permission sought. But before the Collector could pass an order, even the widow of Kachru died. Thereafter, in 2004, the appellant co-operative society learnt that the present respondents - the children of Kachru were making preparation for alienating the land to a third party. In view of this, they filed the suit to prevent them from alienating the land perpetually. The Courts below held that the appellant society could not prove their title to the suit land because of absence of the permission of the Collector as well as because of defective registration 3 belatedly after five years from the date of the execution of the sale deed. The Courts below also held that the apprehension of the society that the respondents would sale away the property is also unfounded. 2 The only question that arose at this stage is whether the apprehension of the appellant that the respondents would sale away the property to a third party is genuine apprehension ? The answer to this, is in negative mainly because the respondents though have stepped into shoes of Kachru - original allottee of the suit land are prevented from selling the property to a third party or even to the present appellant without obtaining permission to do so from the Collector. In view of this, there was hardly any cause of action for the suit and so the suit would fail. However, the appellant society, it seems are in a position to pursue the action which they started along with Kachru for seeking permission of the Collector. They are entitled to make the present respondents parties to such application. Obviously, the respondents would not co-operate with the appellant society and would oppose granting of permission but the proceeding before the Collector should be persuaded by both the parties and they would face the consequences of the same. ORDER The appeal stands dismissed. Civil application disposed of. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J) tsk/ 4