Bombay High Court

MAHAVEER KUSHABA KADAM THROUGH GPA HOLDER AND ANRversusSACHIN MADHUKAR KULKARNI AND ORS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF

Holding

The suit under Section 18 is not barred by limitation as it was filed within the fifteen‑year period prescribed by the amended provision, and Order VII Rule 11 cannot be used to dismiss the plaint.

Summary

The petitioners, who purchased agricultural land in 2004, challenged a Money Lending Suit filed by the respondents under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014, which sought reconveyance of the land on the ground that the sale deeds were security for an unauthorized loan. The petitioners moved the District Deputy Registrar to dismiss the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the CPC, arguing that the suit was barred by the original five‑year limitation period in Section 18. The Registrar rejected the application and the petitioners filed this writ petition. The Court examined whether the amendment increasing the limitation to fifteen years could be applied retrospectively and whether Order VII Rule 11 is available in proceedings under the Act. It held that the amendment was valid and the suit was instituted within the fifteen‑year period, and that the special statutory scheme under the Act precludes the use of Order VII Rule 11 to dismiss the plaint. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.

Issues considered

Whether a proceeding under Section 18 of the Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 is barred by the original five‑year limitation period.
Whether the amendment extending the limitation to fifteen years can be applied to transactions predating the amendment.
Whether Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code can be invoked to reject a plaint filed under the Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order VII Rule 11
Limitation Act, 1963
Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation) Act, 2014 — s. 16, 17, 18, 28

Subjects

limitation period
money lending regulation
property reconveyance
Order VII Rule 11
statutory amendment
agricultural land
Maharashtra
civil procedure

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:22053
1 WP 4292.2026.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
BENCH AT AURANGABAD

WRIT PETITION NO.4292 OF 2026

1. Mahaveer Kushaba Kadam,
age 65 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o Jalkot, Tq. Tuljapur,
District Dharashiv.

2. Sou. Ayodhya Mahaveer Kadam,
Age 55 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o. Jalkot, Tq. Tuljapur,
District Dharashiv.

Through their GPA Holder
Manoj Mahaveer Kadam,
age-34 years, Occ. Agri,
R/o. Jalkot, Tq. Tuljapur,
District-Dharashiv. Petitioners.
(Ori. Defendants)
Versus

1. Sachin Madhukar Kulkarni,
age adult years, Occ. Agri,
R/o. Village Hangarga (Nal),
Tq. Tuljapur, District Dharashiv.

2. Sandeep s/o Madhukar Kulkarni,
age adult, Occ. Agri,
R/o Village Hangarga (Nal),
Tq. Tuljapur, District Dharashiv.
(Resp 1 and 2 original plaintiffs)

3. Bhimashankar Baburao Katore,
age adult, occ. Agri,
R/o Village Jalkot, Tq. Tuljapur, Dist.
Dharashiv.
(resp 3 is original defendant.)

4. The District Deputy Registrar,
Dharashiv District, Dharashiv.

5. The Assistant Registrar,
Tuljapur, District Dharashiv. Respondents.
…
2 WP 4292.2026.odt

_______________________________________________________
Advocate for petitioners : Mr. V.D. Sapkal Senior Counsel i/b
Mr. A.D. Khedkar
Advocate for respondent no.1 : Mr. S.B. Bhapkar h/f Mr. P.B.
Rakhunde
AGP for Respondents-State Authorities : Mr. V. K. Kotecha
_______________________________________________________
...

CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
Reserved on : April 28, 2026
Pronounced on : May 29, 2026
...

JUDGMENT :-

1. Present writ petition takes exception to the order dated

25th March, 2026 passed by the District Deputy Registrar in

Money Lending Suit no.11 of 2017, whereby petitioner’s

application for rejection of plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of

the Civil Procedure Code on the ground of limitation has been

rejected.

2. Respondent no.1 and 2 instituted proceeding before the

District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Osmanabad

under section 18 of the Maharashtra Money Lending

(Regulation) Act 2014, (for short hereinafter referred to as “the

Act of 2014”) seeking re-conveyance and release of the

property i.e. agricultural land in favor of the plaintiff, alleging

that sale-deeds dated 4.8.2004 and 3.5.2006 in favor of

petitioner no.2-Ayodhya Bai were obtained towards security of
3 WP 4292.2026.odt

unauthorized loan transaction. Pursuant to complaint

submitted by respondent no.1, Assistant Registrar caused

inquiry and submitted his report dated 30.12.2016 observing

possibility of money lending transaction. Accordingly, Money

Lending Suit no.11 of 2017 came to be registered with District

Deputy Registrar under section 18 of the Act of 2014.

3. Petitioners appeared in the suit and filed an application

under order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code seeking

rejection of plaint being barred by limitation and raised

challenge to its maintainability. Respondent no.4/District

Deputy Registrar rejected said application vide impugned order

dated 25.3.2026.

4. Mr.V.D.Sapkal learned senior advocate i/b Mr. A.D.

Khedkar appearing for petitioners strenuously submits that

petitioner has purchased agricultural land under registered

sale-deed dated 4.8.2004 from respondent no.1. Till 2016,

respondent no.1 has not raised objection in respect of said sale

transaction. Proceeding is initiated after 14 years under

provisions of the Act of 2014 with malafide intention to harass

petitioners. Petitioners have instituted Regular Civil Suit

no.109 of 2018 seeking declaration of ownership and

permanent injunction against respondent no.1, in which Trial

Court has passed an order dated 4.5.2023, temporarily
4 WP 4292.2026.odt

restraining respondents from interfering or disturbing peaceful

possession of petitioners over suit property till decision of the

suit. According to Mr. Sapkal, since petitioner has purchased

suit property in the year 2004 under registered sale-deed,

proceeding initiated after 14 years under section 18 of the Act

of 2014 is barred by limitation. He submits that section 18 of

the Act of 2014, as it originally stood prescribed limitation of

five years for inquiry into nature of transaction from the date

of transaction. Subsequently, by way of amendment, said

limitation period is extended to 15 years. However,

amendment introduced by Maharashtra Act, 23 of 2014 cannot

be given retrospective effect. In support of his contentions, he

relies upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in

case of T. Kaliamurthi and another Vs. Five Gori Thaikkal Wakf

and others reported in (2008) 9 Supreme Court Cases 306.

5. Accordingly, he submits that claim of respondents over

property has been extinguished by operation of limitation

prescribed in original Act of 2014 before extension of

limitation by Maharashtra Money Lending (Regulation)

Amendment Act, 2014 dated 25.06.2014. Mr. Sapkal would

therefore urge that respondent no.4 ought to have entertained

petitioner's application under order VII Rule 11 and rejected

plaint in Money Lending suit no.11 of 2017.
5 WP 4292.2026.odt

6. Per contra, Mr.S.B.Bhapkar h/f Mr.P.B.Rakhunde,

learned advocate appearing for respondent no.1 supports the

impugned order. According to him, the provisions under order

VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code cannot be invoked in

the proceeding initiated under section 18 of the Act of 2014.

The complaint/application made by the debtor or the

proceeding initiated on the basis of verification under section

16 or inspection under section 17 before the District Registrar

cannot be treated as plaint in strict sense. He would further

submit that object of legislation under the Act of 2014 cannot

be frustrated by raising technical plea. In support of his

contentions, he relies upon observations of Hon’ble Supreme

Court in case of i]-Chhotanben and anr. Vs. Kirtibhai

Jalkrushnabhai Thakkar and Ors. Reported in AIR-2018

Supreme Court 2447 and ii] Syed Yakoob Vs. K.S.

Radhakrishnan and others reported in AIR 1964 Supreme

Court 477 and also of this Court in case of Ashok Commercial

Enterprises Vs. Hubtown Limited reported in 2026 SCC online

Bom 246.

7. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned

advocates appearing for respective parties and upon perusal of

material tendered into service, the core issue that arises for

consideration is “whether the proceeding under section 18 of
6 WP 4292.2026.odt

the Act of 2014 seeking return of immovable property acquired

by the petitioner under the registered sale-deed executed in

the year 2004 is barred by limitation and, therefore, deserves

to be rejected at the threshold in exercise of the powers

conferred under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure

Code.?”

8. For the purpose of deliberating on the issue raised, it is

apposite to refer to the legislative background of the Act of

2014.

9. The Bombay Moneylenders Act, 1946 was promulgated

for regulation and control of transactions of money lending in

State of Maharashtra. Section 13-A of the said Act prescribes

powers of authorized officer to require production of records or

documents for the purpose of verification whether the business

of money lending is carried on in accordance with the

provisions of the Act. Section 13-B inserted by Maharashtra 76

of 1975 deals with disposal of the property pledged with

money-lender carrying on business of money lending without

valid license. It further provides that, if upon inspection of

records and documents, made under section 13-A of the Act,

the Inspecting Officer is satisfied that money-lender is in

possession of the property pledged to him by debtor as security
7 WP 4292.2026.odt

for the loan advanced by money-lender in course of his

business of money-lending without a valid license, the

Inspecting Officer was required money lender to deliver

forthwith possession of such property to him and Inspecting

Officer/Registrar, after due verification and identity thereof,

return it to the debtor who had pledged it.

10. The aforesaid provision has been interpreted by this

Court in case of Ramesh Dhulatrao Gawhale Vs. State of

Maharashtra and others reported in 2006 (5) Mh.L.J. 15. In

paragraph no.13, it is observed as under :-

“13. Discussion above therefore leaves no doubt
that legislature did not intend to cover transactions
in which immovable property was sold as security
under section 13-B of Act. In any case it is apparent
that when interest in immovable property is
transferred by mortgage or by assignment (Sale),
such cases do not fall under it even if it be as
security by debtor to moneylender. Legislature was
alive to the legal meaning of phrase pledge and the
same has been used deliberately in section 13-B.
Read in contradistinction with section 18 and 28
this is more apparent. The word Pawn broker is not
used in section 13-B deliberately because security
accepted by moneylender may be even of title
deeds or bonds or other similar securities like
cheques, shares etc. In all these writ petitions, it is
admitted position that the respondents or debtors
have executed and registered sale-deeds in favour
of petitioners and petitioners have thus acquired
title to the immovable property possession of which
is ordered to be restored back to such vendor
debtors by Authority or is sought by the Authority
itself. Obviously such direction and order is beyond
scope of section 13-B of Bombay Moneylenders Act,
1946 which deals with only movable properties.”
8 WP 4292.2026.odt

11. In the year 2014, it was noticed that harassment at the

hands of money-lenders has been increased in the State of

Maharashtra resulting into frequent suicides by the farmers;

and then existing enactment on money-lending was found to

be inadequate to protect the farmers-debtors. Hence,

Government thought it fit to adopt social and legal measures to

effectively prevent the harassment to the farmers-debtors by

bringing better provisions for regulation and control of

transactions of money-lending. Accordingly, the Governor of

Maharashtra had promulgated Maharashtra Money-Lending

(Regulation) Ordinance, 2014 with effect from 16.1.2014.

New section 18 was introduced with title “Return of

immovable property acquired in course of money-lending.” It

provides that, if on the basis of facts disclosed, during the

verification under section 16 or inspection under section 17, or

by an application from a debtor or otherwise, the District

Registrar has reason to believe that any immovable property,

which has come in possession of the money-lender by way of

sale, mortgage, lease, exchange or otherwise, in the nature of

property offered by the debtor to the money-lender as a

security for loan advanced by the money-lender in course of

money-lending, the District Registrar has been empowered to

hold inquiry into the nature of transactions and declare the

instrument or conveyance as invalid and further order as to
9 WP 4292.2026.odt

restoration of possession of the property to the debtor who has

executed the instrument or conveyance as a security, however,

with rider that such an inquiry and action can be taken in

respect of transactions which took place within the period of

“five years” from the date of verification or inspection or the

date of receipt of application from the debtor. However, it was

urged on the floor of state legislation to amend section 18 of

the Act which provides for return of immovable property

acquired in course of money lending by increasing time limit

from 5 years to 15 years. Accordingly, Maharashtra

Amendment Act 23 of 2014 has been passed effective from

14.06.2014 whereby limitation of five years as prescribed in

original Section 18 has been increased to 15 years.

12. As can be observed from the object of legislation to curb

harassment at the hands of money-lenders and consequential

suicides of the farmers, the Act has been promulgated and

provision is incorporated under Section 18, whereby the

District Registrar is authorized to inquire into the nature of

transactions and declare the same as money-lending

transactions after holding inquiry into the nature of

transactions. Once the District Registrar declares the

instrument or conveyance as invalid, he is empowered to order

restoration of the possession of the property to the debtor, who
10 WP 4292.2026.odt

has executed such instrument as a security towards loan

transaction.

13. The corollary of the aforesaid provision demonstrates

that Act has been promulgated with benevolent object and

special provisions are introduced authorizing District Registrar

to invalidate the instrument or conveyance with consequential

order of restoration of possession to the debtor. The Legislator

thought it fit to prescribe the limitation period of 15 years for

causing inquiry into unauthorized money-lending transactions

and restoration of possession to the victims of such

transactions.

14. In light of the aforesaid legislative backdrop, if

contention of petitioner is considered, it is difficult to hold

that the proceeding initiated in the year 2016 in respect of the

transaction of 2004 is barred by limitation. Undisputedly, the

proceeding is initiated before expiry of the limitation period of

15 years as prescribed under amended Section 18 of Act of

2014.

15. Mr. Sapkal learned senior Advocate endeavors to

contend that since limitation of 5 years was prescribed in

original Section 18 of the Act of 2014 and period of more than

5 years had been lapsed prior to institution of the proceeding,
11 WP 4292.2026.odt

the plaint needs to be rejected. His reliance on the

observations of the Supreme Court of India in case of T.

Kaliamurthi and another (supra) appears to be misplaced. In

that case the effect of Section 107 of Wakf Act, 1995

exempting suits for possession of immovable property of Wakf

from provisions of Limitation Act, 1963 has been considered.

The Supreme Court in paragraph no.36 observed as under :-

“36. Section 31 of the Limitation Act, 1963 provides that
nothing in the Limitation Act, 1963 shall enable any
suit, appeal or application to be instituted, provided or
made, for which the period of limitation prescribed by
the Limitation Act, 1908 expired before the
commencement of this Act. Section 31 of the 1963 Act
assumes great importance which was completely
overlooked by the first appellate court. Admittedly, in
the present case, the suits were filed long after the
death of the Muthavalli and the suit properties were
transferred as far back as in 1927, therefore, the suits
were barred under the Limitation Act, 1908. In other
words, in the present case, the period of limitation
prescribed under the 1908 Act had already expired
before the commencement of the 1963 Act and,
therefore, in view of the clear mandate of Section 31 of
the Limitation Act, 1963, suits could not have been
instituted by taking the plea that the same was within
the limitation under the 1963 Act.”

16. Mr. Sapkal, learned Senior Advocate would therefore

submits that where the right of suit is barred under law of

limitation in-force before new provision came into operation

and a vested right has accrued to any individual, the provisions

cannot revive or take away accrued vested right. There cannot

be dispute over proposition of law as espoused by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in case of T. Kaliamurthi and another. In that
12 WP 4292.2026.odt

case, the transactions in question were entered into by the

Mutawali in the year 1927 before his death. The rights in

favour of purchaser were accrued in view of the law of

limitation, particularly, mandate under Section 31 of the

Limitation Act, 1963. Therefore, it was held that suit instituted

by the Wakf relying upon the amendment section 107 of the

Wakf Act, 1995 cannot have effect of reviving, barred claim.

17. In the present case, petitioners cannot claim any vested

right in the property that would prevent the Authorities

designated under the Act of 2014 to inquire into the nature of

transactions. The limitation of five years as provided under

original section 18 was operative for period of six months prior

to Maharashtra Amendment 23 of 2014 with effect from

14.6.2014. The petitioners cannot claim that only because in

original section 18 of Act of 2014, limitation of five years was

prescribed, some right was accrued in their favour or remedy

available to respondent/debtor is barred because five years

limitation period was prescribed before amendment to section

18. It is trite that limitation prescribed for any action does not

create right nor it takes away right. In only bars remedy.

18. Admittedly, when subject transaction took place in the

year 2004, there was no provision analogous to present section

18, in the Act of 1946. The Act of 2014 is brought with special
13 WP 4292.2026.odt

provision under section-18 providing for inquiry into the

nature of transactions in respect of immovable property. By

amendment, the limitation of five years prescribed to initiate

inquiry is enhanced to 15 years to find out nature of

transaction.

19. Pertinently, petitioners have not challenged the

constitutional validity of newly introduced section 18,

particularly, after its amendment in the Act of 2014. If

contention of petitioners is accepted, the amended provision

would become redundant and ineffective. The petitioners

cannot claim any right that would prevent the Authorities to

inquire into transactions nor inquiry initiated within 15 years

of transaction can be invalidated by applying the bar of

limitation.

20. In result, writ petition is devoid of merits, hence

dismissed.

( S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR )
Judge
…
aaa/-f.

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…