Allowed

Rangnath Gyanoba Agarkar and Ors. v. Suresh Rangnath Agarkar and Ors.

Bombay HC8 Mar 2023CA/2357/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the applicants, father and sons, to raise a crop loan secured by a mortgage of their half share in ancestral agricultural land, modifying a previous injunction order.

What did the court decide?

The applicants are permitted to raise a crop loan as security by way of mortgage of the suit land to the extent of their half share for one period of one year not exceeding Rs. 3,50,000/- for each app

Rangnath Gyanoba Agarkar and Ors. Vs Suresh Rangnath… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2023)

¶1

906-.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 2357 OF 2023 IN SECOND APPEAL NO. 876 OF 2004

¶4

Rangnath S/o Gyanoba Agarkar
and Anr

¶5

...Applicants

¶6

Versus

¶7

Suresh S/o Rangnath Agarkar
and Ors

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

...

¶10

Mr. H. V. Tungar, Advocate for the Applicants.
Mr. D. P. Deshpande, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1.

¶11

...

¶12

CORAM:R.M. JOSHI, J DATE :MARCH 08, 2023

¶13

PER COURT :

¶14

1.The applicants are the original defendant nos.

¶15

1 and 2 in R.C.S. No. 288/1999 filed by the Respondent
No. 1 (Original Plaintiff) for partition and separate
possession and half share of the agricultural land
properties mentioned in paragraph 1 of the Application.
According to the Applicants, R.C.S. No. 288/1999 was
partly decreed by the learned C.J.J.D, Renapur on
26.09.2002 and it was declared that the Defendant Nos.
1 and 2 are having 1/3rd share each in the agricultural
lands and house properties except 31 R land from the

¶16

Page 1 of 5

¶17

Malani

¶18

906-.odt

¶19

block no. 9 purchased by Defendant No. 1.

¶20

2.Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the said
judgement and decree, original plaintiff preferred
being R.C.A. No. 193/2002 whereas original defendant
nos. 1 & 2 had filed cross-objection in the said
Appeal. The said First Appeal was dismissed and cross-
objection filed by the Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 came to
be allowed. Present second appeal is preferred by the
original plaintiff being aggrieved by the judgement
passed by the first appellate Court.

¶21

3.In Civil Application No. 5236/2004, by order
dated 11.01.2008, this Court restrained present
Applicants from disposing or creating third party
interest of whatsoever nature in suit property. It is
contended by Applicants that original plaintiff claims
half share in the suit properties. According to them
the lands are irrigated lands and they have submitted
proposal for crop loan to Latur District Central Co-
operative Bank. However, concerned Officer required
Applicants to repay the entire crop loan and then to
seek permission of this Court for sanction of crop loan

¶22

for the present year for Rs. 3,50,000/-. It is stated

¶23

Page 2 of 5

¶24

Malani

¶25

906-.odt

¶26

that in view of order of this Court dated 24.07.2006,
in order to avail crop loan, the Applicants need
relaxation / modification of the said order.

¶27

4.Learned Counsel for the Applicants drew

¶28

attention of this Court to the orders passed by this
Court dated 27.11.2013 and 14.07.2022 whereby the
condition of order of injunction was relaxed to the
extent of permitting the Applicants to raise crop loan
against execution of the mortgage of the suit land to
the extent of half share. It is submitted that the crop
loan so obtained has been repaid before the next crop
season and there is no breach of order committed by
Applicants.

¶29

5.Learned Counsel for the original plaintiff
opposed the said contention mainly on the ground that
it is because of filing of these Applications, hearing
of the Appeal is delayed. He drew attention of this
Court to the statement made by the learned Counsel for
the Applicants showing his readiness for hearing the
Appeal finally. He expects that the appeal is heard at
the earliest.

¶30

Page 3 of 5

¶31

Malani

¶32

906-.odt

¶33

6. There is no dispute about the fact that the

¶34

contesting parties herein are father and sons. There is
no dispute about suit properties being their ancestral
properties. The right of the Applicants at least to
some extent in the suit properties in not in dispute.
No doubt, this Court has passed order restraining the
Respondent not to create any third party interest of
whatsoever nature in the suit property, however,
considering the importance of crop loan for an
agriculturist and the amount of loan involved, there is
no reason not to relax/modify condition of order dated
24.07.2006. Pertinently, on previous two occasions when
such modification is allowed, the Applicants herein
have not taken disadvantage thereof and have repaid the
loan in time.

¶35

7.In circumstances, I find no reason for not
allowing the Application. In the result, the following
order is passed:

¶36

O R D E R

¶37

a) The Application is allowed in terms of prayer clause ‘B’ & ‘C’.

¶38

b) The Applicants are permitted to raise crop loan as execution to the mortgage of the

¶39

Page 4 of 5

¶40

Malani

¶41

906-.odt

¶42

suit land to the extent of half share.

¶43

c) The crop loan shall be for a period of one year.

¶44

d) The amount of loan shall not be more than Rs. 3,50,000/- for each Applicant.

¶45

(R.M. JOSHI, J.)

¶46

Page 5 of 5

¶47

Malani

Rangnath Gyanoba Agarkar and Ors. v. Suresh Rangnath Agarkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rangnath Gyanoba Agarkar and Ors. v. Suresh Rangnath Agarkar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S. New India Assurance Co. Ltd. Vs Mahamulal Mahabuddin Yengure and Ors.

Bhagwan Dhansing Pardesi Vs Special Land Acquisition Officer, Jalgaon and Anr.

Anant Shripati Gitte Vs Krishna Santukrao Bhokre

Suresh Rangnath Agarkar Vs Rangnath Gyanoba Agarkar and Ors.

Mahabuddin Mehatasab Vs Kishanrao Rachappa Bhalke Died Lrs Shivkumar and Ors.

Sanjay Kerba Kadam and Another Vs Manchak Kondiba Kadam and Ors.