Here's the scoop on a land dispute case that has been brewing in Ausa, Latur, since 1975. It involves families, land agreements, and a lot of legal back-and-forth. Let's break it down.
On one side, we have Shriram Madhav More and his family. On the other, Abdul Khalid Abdul Samad Patel and his kin. The More family claims they were promised a piece of land, but things got complicated when the Patel family sold it to someone else.
The land in question is 9 acres and 10 gunthas of Survey No. 24 in Pirangamwadi, Ausa. Back in 1975, an agreement was made for the More family to buy this land for ₹14,000. They paid ₹8,051 upfront, but the deal never went through.
"The rest of the money was to be paid by October 1976 to complete the sale and take possession of the land."
The More family tried to complete the sale, but nothing happened. They sent a notice in 1978, but by then, the land had been sold to others. The More family took the matter to court in 1980, asking the court to enforce the contract.
Trial Court (2002): The court dismissed the More family's request for the land but ordered a refund of the initial payment with interest.
Lower Appellate Court (2006): This court reversed the decision, granting the More family the right to the land.
High Court (2025): The latest judgment from Justice Shailesh P. Brahme overturned the appellate court's decision, siding with the original trial court.
More Family: Argued the land was rightfully theirs according to the 1975 agreement.
Patel Family: Claimed the agreement was just a loan deal and the land was sold rightfully to others.
Subsequent Buyers (Defendants 3-5): Asserted they bought the land legally without knowing about the previous agreement.
The High Court found that the More family could not claim the land as the original agreement was not enforceable. The court ordered that the More family be refunded their initial payment with interest and expenses for the sale deed execution.
"Justice would be served if defendant No.1 is directed to pay the initial amount with interest and the expenses."
This case shows how complex land disputes can become, especially when multiple parties and transactions are involved. It highlights the importance of clear agreements and timely legal actions.
