LAXMAN, Aged about 60 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, S/o Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi, R/o Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna, (Madhya Pradesh)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                      OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :                  LAXMAN

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/              :        Mrs. Jamotri Bai

DECLARATION

(Under Rule 25 of Chapter X)

The copies as required by Rule 25 of Chapter X of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh Rules, 2008, have served upon Clerk of office of the Advocate General for India at      PM on                2018 in Jabalpur.

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATED :                              ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                      OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :                  LAXMAN

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/              :        Mrs. Jamotri Bai

I N D E X

S. No.	Description of documents	Annexure	Pages
1.	DECLARATION (Under Rule 25 of Chapter X)		1
2.	Index		2 & 3
3.	Chronology of Events		4 & 5
4.	Memo of appeal		6 TO 15
5.	List of documents.		16 & 17
6.	Copy of the plaint dated 28.11.2013	A-1	18 TO 25
7.	Copy of the Written Statement dated 28.08.2014 filed by defendant No. 1	A-2	26 TO 29
8.	Copy of the Written Statement dated 03.03.2014 filed by defendant No. 3, 4, 5, & 6	A-3	30 TO 33
9.	Copy of the oral evidence dated 24. 02.2015 filed by plaintiff No. 1	A-4	34 TO 38
10.	Copy of Judgement and Decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013	A-5	39 TO 55
11.	Copy of the Memo of Appeal Dated 10.03.2018	A-6	56 TO 67
12.	Copy of the application Dated 10.03.2018 for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963	A-7	68 & 69
13.	Certified Copy of the Judgement and Decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018	A-8	70 TO 73
14.	Application under Order 39, Rule 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for grant of temporary injunction alongwith affidavit		74 TO 76
15.	Vakalatnama		77
16.	Court Fee		78

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATE :                                  ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                                OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :                  LAXMAN

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/              :        Mrs. Jamotri Bai

CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS

S.No	Date	Events
1.	28.11.2013	Respondent No. 1 to 4/ plaintiffs had filed a suit on 28.11.2013 for decree of declaration, partition, separate possession and permanent injunction against the appellant/ defendants.
2.	03.02.2014	defendant No. 7 was proceeded ex-partee on 03.02.2014,
3.	03.03.2014	defendant No. 3 was proceeded on 03.03.2014 ex-partee,
4.	03.03.2014	Written Statement dated 03.03.2014 filed by defendant No. 3, 4, 5, & 6 are on record but no evidence was lead by them.
5.	31.07.2014	After serving the notice defendant No. 8 were proceeded ex-partee on 31.07.2014.
6.	28.08.2014	Their written statements are on record but no evidence was lead by them. Written Statement dated 28.08.2014 filed by defendant No. 1. They have denied all adverse allegations and contentions raised against them except the admitted facts.
7.	29.10.2014	Defendant No. 1, 3, 4, 5, & 6 were proceeded ex-partee on 29.10.2014.
8.	24.02.2015	Respondent No. 1/ plaintiff No. 1 had filed her examination in chief under Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Copy of the oral evidence dated 24.02.2015 filed by plaintiff No. 1.
9.	05.07.2016	The trial Court below without appreciating the true material facts and so also misconception of law decreed the suit vide Judgement and Decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013.
10.	10.03.2018	Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid Judgement and Decree passed by the Trial Court, appellants/ Defendant No. 1, 2, & 7 had preferred a civil appeal on 10.03.2018 under the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (No. 5 of 1908) alongwith an application for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
11.	11.07.2018	The lower appellate Court dismissed the application Dated 10.03.2018 for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 holding that no case was made out showing sufficient cause therefore consequently dismissed the appeal too vide Judgement and Decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018.
12.		Appellant preferred a second appeal under the provisions of Section 100 Of The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( No. 5 Of 1908) before the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh Principal Seat at Jabalpur

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATE :                                  ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                      OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :        1.       LAXMAN, Aged about 60

Defendant No. 1, 2, & 7                 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, S/o Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi,  

                                                          2.      SONE LAL, Aged about 57

                                                          years, Occupation – Agriculturist, S/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi, 

No. 1 & 2 both R/o Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh).

                                                          3.      Mrs. RAM KALI, Aged

about 54 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, D/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi,  W/o Mr. Teeka Ram, R/o village – Katni, Tahsil and District – Katni (Madhya Pradesh).

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/                       1.       Mrs. Jamotri Bai, aged

Plaintiffs                                         about 46 years, Occupation – ife, D/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi, W/o Mr. Bal Kishun Lodhi, R/o Village – Tola, Tahsil Reethi,  District – Katni (Madhya Pradesh).

                                                          2.      Mrs. Panni Bai, aged about

44 years, Occupation – Housewife, D/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi, W/o Mr. Hubba Lodhi, R/o Village Sarsi, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh).

3.      Mrs. Gota Bai, aged about 41 years, Occupation – Housewife, D/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi, W/o Mr. Ashok Lodhi, R/o Village Rahkari, Tahsil – Reethi, District – Katni (Madhya Pradesh).

4.      Mrs. Chinjo Bai, aged about 37 years, Occupation – Housewife, D/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi, W/o Mr. Vijay Lodhi, R/o Village Rahkari, Tahsil – Reethi, District – Katni (Madhya Pradesh).

Defendant No. 3 to 5 & 8             5.      Ram Swaroop, aged about 42 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, S/o  Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi,

                                                          6.      Jai Kumar, aged about 12 years, Minor through father Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi,

                                                          7.       Sant Kumar, aged about 10 years, Minor through father Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi,

No. 1 & 2 both R/o Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh).

8. The State of Madhya Pradesh, Through the Collector, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh).

SECOND APPEAL UNDER SECTION 100 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ( NO. 5 OF 1908)

[Claim in appeal valued at Rs. 186/- being 20 times of annual land revenue of Rs. 14.30/-for the purposes of declaration, Rs. 538/- being 60 times of annual land revenue of Rs. 4.30/- for the purposes of partition and Rs. 186/- being 20 times of annual land revenue of Rs. 14.30/-for the purposes of permanent injunction AND COURT FEE FOR A SUM OF RS. 1,500/- (for 3 of each declaration relief of Rs.500/-) FOR DECLARATION, RS. 100/- FOR PARTITION, AND RS. 100/- INJUNCTION, TOTAL RS. 1,700/- are being paid herewith accordingly as before the Courts below]

CIVIL SUIT FILED ON 28.10.2013

Being aggrieved by the Judgement and Decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018, arising out of Judgement and Decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013, the appellants/ Defendant No. 1, 2, & 7 beg to prefer the instant appeal on following facts and grounds and substantial question of Law, amongst the others :

MATERIAL FACTS OF THE CASE :

1.     Respondent No. 1 to 4/ plaintiffs had filed a suit on 28.11.2013 for decree of declaration, partition, separate possession and permanent injunction against the appellant/ defendants. Copy of the plaint dated 28.11.2013 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-1.

2.    It is an admitted fact that parties to the suit belongs to the members of the same family.

3.    After serving the notice defendant No. 8 were proceeded ex-partee on 31.07.2014, defendant No. 7 was proceeded ex-partee on 03.02.2014, defendant No. 3 was proceeded on 03.03.2014 ex-partee, and defendant No. 1, 3, 4, 5, & 6 were proceeded ex-partee on 29.10.2014. Their written statements are on record but no evidence was lead by them. Copy of the Written Statement dated 28.08.2014 filed by defendant No. 1 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-2. Copy of the Written Statement dated 03.03.2014 filed by defendant No. 3, 4, 5, & 6 are filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-3. They have denied all adverse allegations and contentions raised against them except the admitted facts.

4.    Respondent No. 1/ plaintiff No. 1 had filed her examination in chief under Order 18, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Copy of the oral evidence dated 24. 02.2015 filed by plaintiff No. 1 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-4.

5.    The trial Court below without appreciating the true material facts and so also misconception of law decreed the suit. Copy of Judgement and Decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-5.

6.    Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied by the aforesaid Judgement and Decree passed by the Trial Court, appellants/ Defendant No. 1, 2, & 7 had preferred a civil appeal on 10.03.2018 under the provisions of Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (No. 5 of 1908) alongwith an application for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Copy of the Memo of Appeal Dated 10.03.2018 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-6. Copy of the application Dated 10.03.2018 for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-7.

7.     The lower appellate Court dismissed the application Dated 10.03.2018 for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 holding that no case was made out showing sufficient cause therefore consequently dismissed the appeal too. Certified Copy of the Judgement and Decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018 is filed herewith and marked as Annexure A-8. Hence this second appeal on following grounds amongst the others :

GROUNDS URGED :

A.   That the learned Courts below have erred in questions of law as well as of facts.

B.   That the learned Courts below have not been provided an opportunity of hearing to the appellant herein. Even the averments made by him in the written statements have not been dealt with by the learned courts below.

C.   That the findings of the learned Courts below are liable to be reversed as they are based on imagination, incorrect and wrong appreciation of facts.

D.  That the Judgment of the learned Courts below is erroneous and deserves to be reversed as it is based on mere surmises and misconception of facts and law.

E.   The Judgment and Decree of the courts below is perverse, malafide and not sustainable in law.

F.    Because if the order impugned/ Judgement and Decree, if allowed to stand, would occasion a failure of justice and cause irreparable injury to the appellants against whom it was made.

G.  Because the findings reached by the learned Courts below is vitiated due to non-consideration of material evidence and by consideration of inadmissible evidence.

H.  It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of the court. Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within a certain limit. Length of delay is no matter, acceptability of the explanation is the only criterion. Sometimes delay of the shortest range may be uncondonable due to a want of acceptable explanation whereas in certain other cases, delay of a very long range can be condoned as the explanation thereof is satisfactory. Once the court accepts the explanation as sufficient, it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisional jurisdiction, unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or arbitrary or perverse. But it is a different matter when the first court refuses to condone the delay. In such cases, the superior court would be free to consider the cause shown for the delay afresh and it is open to such superior court to come to its own finding even untrammeled by the conclusion of the lower court as held by the apex Court in the case of Ramnath Sao @ Ramnath Sahu & Ors. v. Govardhan  AIR 2002 SC 1201 = (2002)3 SCC 195. 

I.      Because trial Court was erred in Law in holding that the plaintiffs and  defendant No. 1 to 7 are the joint owners in possession of the suit agricultural land situated at Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh) as described in para 1 of the plaint.

J.     Because trial Court was erred in Law in right in findings reached by the learned Courts below is vitiated due to non-consideration of material evidence and by consideration of inadmissible evidence.

K.   Because trial Court was erred in Law in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of partition and separate possession of the suit agricultural land situated at Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh) as described in para 1 of the plaint.

L.    Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of decaration that the sale deed dated 25.09.2012 executed by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendant NO. 4 & 5 to be null and void.

M.Because trial Court was erred in Law in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction in view of defendant No. 1 to 7 are causing interference in the peaceful possession of suit land and trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land.

N.  Because trial Court was erred in Law in holding that the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by Court of Tahsildar, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh) in file of Revenue Case No. 118/A-27/2011-12.

O.  Because lower appellate Court was erred in Law in holding that the appellants failed to make out a case of sufficient cause to condone the delay in view of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW

Though the expression "substantial question of law" has not been defined in any of the Act or in any of the statutes where this expression appears, e.g., section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The true meaning and connotation of this expression is now well settled by various judicial pronouncements. It was observed by the Supreme Court in Sir Chunilal V. Mehta & Sons Ltd. v. Century Spg. & Mfg. Co. Ltd., that “a question of law would be a substantial question of law if it directly or indirectly affects the rights of parties and/or there is some doubt or difference of opinion on the issue". But “if the question is settled by the Apex Court or the general principles to be applied in determining the question are well-settled, mere application of it to a particular set of facts would not constitute a substantial question of law" – Krishna Kumar Aggarwal v. Assessing Officer.

      I.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs and  defendant No. 1 to 7 are the joint owners in possession of the suit agricultural land situated at Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh) as described in para 1 of the plaint ?

  II.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in findings reached by the learned Courts below is vitiated due to non-consideration of material evidence and by consideration of inadmissible evidence ?

III.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of partition and separate possession of the suit agricultural land situated at Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh) as described in para 1 of the plaint ?

IV.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of decaration that the sale deed dated 25.09.2012 executed by defendant No. 6 in favour of defendant NO. 4 & 5 to be null and void ?

   V.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in holding that the plaintiffs are entitled for relief of permanent injunction in view of defendant No. 1 to 7 are causing interference in the peaceful possession of suit land and trying to dispossess the plaintiffs from the suit land ?

VI.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the trial Court was right in holding that the order dated 18.07.2012 passed by Court of Tahsildar, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh) in file of Revenue Case No. 118/A-27/2011-12 ?

VII.            Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case that the lower appellate Court was right in holding that the appellants failed to make out a case of sufficient cause to condone the delay in view of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ?

Caveat :

That, no notice of lodging a caveat by the opposite party is received.

PRAYER

It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that Judgement and Decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018, arising out of Judgement and Decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013, may kindly be set aside, with costs throughout, in the larger in the interest of Justice.

Any other relief deemed fit and proper may also be granted.

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATE :                                  ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                      OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :                  LAXMAN

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/              :        Mrs. Jamotri Bai

LIST OF DOCUMENTS

S.No	Description of document	Date of document	Original copy	Number of page
1.	Memo of the plaint	28.11.2013	Xerox	08 (Eight)
2.	Memo of the Written Statement filed by defendant No. 1	28.08.2014	Xerox	04 (Four)
3.	Memo of the Written Statement  filed by defendant No. 3, 4, 5, & 6	03.03.2014	Xerox	04 (Four)
4.	Memo of the oral evidence filed by plaintiff No. 1	24. 02.2015	Xerox	05 (Five )
5.	Judgement and Decree  passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013	05.07.2016	Xerox	17 (Seventeen)
6.	Memo of Appeal	10.03.2018	Xerox	12 (Twelve)
7.	Application for condonation of delay under the provisions of Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963	10.03.2018	Xerox	02 (Two)
8.	Certified Copy of the Judgement and Decree  passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018	11.07.2018	Certified Copy	04 (Four)

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATED :                              ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                      OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :                  LAXMAN

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/              :        Mrs. Jamotri Bai

APPLICATION UNDER ORDER 39, RULE 1 & 2 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 ( NO. 5 OF 1908) FOR GRANT OF TEMPORARY INJUNCTION

Appellant named above most humbly and respectfully begs to submit as under :

1.     Appellant has preferred the instant second appeal under the provisions of Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( No. 5 of 1908) against the Judgement and Decree dated 11.07.2018 passed by the Court of additional District Judge, Mr. Rajesh Kumar Ravetkar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of LAXMAN V/s Mrs. Jamotri Bai & Ors. in the file of Miscellaneous Judicial Case No. 10 of 2018, arising out of Judgement and Decree dated 05.07.2016 passed by the Court of Civil Judge, Class-II, Mr. Jai Patidar, Pawai, District – Panna (Madhya Pradesh), in the matter of Jamotri Bai V/s Laxman & Ors. in the file of Civil Suit No. 71-A of 2013.

2.    Appellants are in peaceful possession suit agricultural land since last 50 years and cultivating the same. As per the averment made in the memo of appeal, appellants have a good prima facie case and hope to succeed in it. In order to frustrate the claim of appellants, the respondent No. 1 to 4/ plaintiffs is intended to sell the suit land. If during pendency of instant appeal, the respondent No. 1 to 4/ plaintiffs are not restrained by an order of temporary injunction, from alienating, creating third party interest, selling the suit land to third party, appellants would suffer irreparable loss and injury. The balance of convenience too lies in favour of appellants.

3.    From the facts and circumstances narrated hereinabove in the preceeding paras, it is expedient in the larger interest of Justice, that the respondent No. 1 to 4/ plaintiffs be restrained by an order of temporary injunction, from alienating, creating third party interest, selling the suit land to third party.

An affidavit in support of this application is being filed herewith.

PRAYER

It is therefore most humbly and respectfully prayed that during pendency of the instant appeal the respondent No. 1 to 4/ plaintiffs may kindly be restrained by an order of temporary injunction, from alienating, creating third party interest, selling the suit land to third party, in the larger interest of Justice.

Any other relief deemed fit and proper may also be granted.

PLACE : JABALPUR

DATED :                              ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANT

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH PRINCIPAL SEAT AT JABALPUR

SECOND APPEAL NO.                      OF 2018

APPELLANTS/                 :                  LAXMAN

VERSUS

RESPONDENTS/              :        Mrs. Jamotri Bai

AFFIDAVIT

I, LAXMAN, Aged about 60 years, Occupation – Agriculturist, S/o Late Mr. Ram Charan Lodhi,  R/o Village NaandChaand, Tahsil – Raipura, District – Panna, (Madhya Pradesh), do hereby state on oath as under :

1.      That I am the appellant No. 1 and am fully conversant with the facts deposed to in the accompanying application.

2.     That the contents of paragraphs 1 to 3 of the accompanying application are true to my personal knowledge and the contents of paragraphs are based on legal advice, which I believe to be true. No material has been concealed and no part is false.

3.     That the Annexure No(s). A-1 to A-8 to the accompanying appeal are true copies of the originals and I have compared the said Annexures with their respective originals and certify them to be true copies thereof.

PLACE : JABALPUR                                                      

DATED :                                                           DEPONENT

                                                             

VERIFICATION

I, LAXMAN, the above named deponent do hereby verify on oath that the contents of the affidavit above are true to my personal knowledge and nothing material has been concealed or falsely stated. Verified at ______this______day of _______

DEPONENT

नेताओं की डगर पर, चमचों दिखाओ चल के ये देश है तुम्हारा, खा जाओ इसको तल के.....

नेताओं की डगर पर, चमचों दिखाओ चल के ये देश है तुम्हारा, खा जाओ इसको तल के.....

Civil P.C. 1908 - O. 2 R. 2 - Bar of Second Suit; Sucha Singh Sodhi v. Baldev Raj Walia, AIR 2018 SC 2241 : (2018) 6 SCC 733 : 2018 (5) Scale 615 : 2018 (2) RCR (Civil) 782 http://bit.ly/CA3777of2018 http://bit.ly/CA3777of2018

Civil P.C. 1908 - O. 2 R. 2 - Bar of Second Suit; Sucha Singh Sodhi v. Baldev Raj Walia, AIR 2018 SC 2241 : (2018) 6 SCC 733 : 2018 (5) Scale 615 : 2018 (2) RCR (Civil) 782 http://bit.ly/CA3777of2018  http://bit.ly/CA3777of2018 

जरा हटकेे 

वो भूली दास्तान जब बीवी-बच्चों के प्रेम में डूबा नौसेना का आला अफ़सर कातिल बन बैठा और पूरा मुल्क उसे बचाने उठ खड़ा हुआ

 August 13, 2016 somdatt  0 Comment

अक्षयकुमार  की  फिल्म  रुस्तम  ने सहसा वो  भूली -बिसरी  दास्तान फिर  ताज़ी कर दी है  जिसने न सिर्फ न्यायिक जगत बल्कि  सत्ता  के गलियारों तक को  हिला दिया था .नानावटी केस इतना दिलचस्प रहा कि कई फिल्में बनीं. किताबें लिखी गईं. 1963 में आई ‘ये रास्ते हैं प्यार के’ और‘अचानक’. सलमान रूश्दी जैसे बड़े राइटर्स ने ‘मिडनाइट्स चिल्ड्रन’  में इस इंसीडेंट पर अपनी किताब में एक चैप्टर लिखा. अक्षय कुमार की फिल्म ‘रुस्तम’ भी पूरी तरह से नानावटी केस पर बेस्ड है.

यह  सेना के एक होनहार अफसर का मामला था जो नानावती कांड के  रूप में मशहूर हुआ था. आजाद भारत  में  किसी सेना के अफसर पर चलने वाला यह पहला एसा मुकदमा था जिसकी अनुगूँज आज तक सुनाई देती  है .’रूस्‍तम,’ जिसमें अक्षय कुमार इंडियन नेवी के ऑफिसर का रोल निभा रहे हैं। ट्रेंड की ही तरह यह फिल्‍म भी एक सच्‍ची घटना पर आधारित है। यह पहला मामला था जिसमे .पारसियों ने एक हत्यारे को बचाने के लिए एड़ी-चोटी का जोर लगा दिया । सिंधी अन्याय के विरोध में सड़क पर आ गए । हत्या जैसा जुर्म करने के बाद भी नौसेना अपने होनहार अधिकारी के पक्ष में डंट कर खड़ी हो गई । वकीलों की दलीलें मीडिया की सुर्खियां बन गई और मी‌डिया की दलीलों से जूरी ने फैसले दिए । फैसले के बाद उस केस पर फिल्में बनी हों, नॉवेल लिखे गए हों..प्ले किए गए हों।। आखिर क्या था ये नानावती केस? प्यार और धोखे की ये कहानी आज भी क्यों याद की जाती है?

नानावती नेवी के होनहार अधिकारी

27 अप्रैल, 1959 का दिन था। नौसेना के कमांडर कवास मानेकशॉ नानावती मुंबई के कोलाबा के कफ परेड के अपने मकान से निकले थे। उनकी जल्दबाजी ऐसी थी, जैसे किसी जरूरी काम से निकले हों। कार में नानावती के साथ उनकी अंग्रेजी मूल की पत्‍नी सिल्‍विया, जिनकी उम्र महज 30 साल थी और बच्चे थे।नानावती नेवी के होनहार अधिकारियों में गिने जाते। वे ब्रिटेन के डॉर्टमाउथ स्थित रॉयल नेवी कॉलेज के छात्र और आईएनएस मैसूर के सेकंड इन कमांड थे। खूबसूरत और गठीले डीलडौल के नानावती दूसरे विश्वयुद्घ के दरमियान कई मोर्चों पर लड़ चुके थे। ‌ब्रिटिश हुक्मरानों ने उन्हें वीरता पुरस्कारों से भी नवाजा था।
माउंटबेटन ने प्रशंसा की थी
वे नौसेना के उन अधिकारियों में से एक थे, जिनकी भारत के अंतिम ब्रिटिश गवर्नर जनरल लॉर्ड लुइस माउंटबेटन ने विशेष रूप से प्रशंसा की थी, तब जबकि अंग्रेज भारत छोड़कर जा रहे थे।महज 37 साल के नानावती न केवल अधिकारी के रूप में अपने कर्तव्यों का विशेष ध्यान रखते, बल्‍कि एक आम नागरिक के रूप में अपने आदर्शों को लेकर वे सचेत थे। लेकिन ऐसा कुछ हुआ कि उन्हीं के हाथों मर्डर हो गया। एक ऐसा मर्डर जो मीडिया की सुर्खियां बना।सिल्विया से नानावती की भेंट 1949 में लंदन में हुई ‌थी।पारसी कमांडर कवास मानेकशॉ नानावटी इंग्लिश पत्‍नी सिल्विया और बच्‍चों के साथ मुंबई में रहते थे।नानावटी घर से दूर रहते थे औरपत्‍नी सिल्विया का अफेयर पति के दोस्‍त प्रेम आहूजा के साथ शुरू हो गया। 21 अप्रैल 1959 को सिल्विया ने नानावटी को सब कुछ बताया और कहा कि प्रेम उनसे शादी नहीं करना चाहते हैं।
सच्‍चाई जिसने  तूफान ला दिया
27 अप्रैल की दोपहर उसने नानावती को एक ऐसी सच्‍चाई बताई, जिसने उनकी दुनिया में तूफान ला दिया। ‌सिल्विया ने अपने पति नानावती को बताया कि वह किसी और से प्यार करती है। और ये और कोई और नहीं था, बल्‍कि उन्हीं का पारिवारिक मित्र प्रेम आहूजा था।
स‌िल्विया की उस आत्म‌स्वीकृति ने नानावती के मन पर क्या असर डाला, इसकी भनक भी उसे नहीं लग पाई। पति-पत्नी और बच्चे उस दोपहर अपनी कार से मुंबई की सड़कों पर दौड़ रहे थे। नानावती ने बीवी और बच्‍चों को मेट्रो सिनेमा पर छोड़ दिया। उन्हें उस दिन का मैटिनी शो देखना था, ये पहले से तय था।उन्हें छोड़ने के बाद नानावती बांबे हॉर्बर की ओर गए, उनकी बोट उन‌ दिनों वहीं खड़ी थी। उन्होंने कैप्टन से कहा कि वे अहमदनगर जा रहे हैं, उन्हें रिवॉल्वर और छह गोलियों की जरूरत है। उन्होंने बंदूक एक पैकेट में रखी और अपनी कार से यूनिवर्सल मोटर्स की ओर बढ़ गए। ये पेडर रोड पर गाड़ियों का शोरूम था, जिसका मालिक प्रेम आहूजा था।
फरेब उसका हुनर था इश्क खास शौक
उस समय कार में नौसेना का एक अधिकारी‌ सवार नहीं था, बल्‍कि एक ऐसा पति था, जिसकी पत्नी ने उसे धोखा दिया था और उसी के दोस्त की बाहों में सो गई थी। नानावती के पास रिवॉल्वर और छह गोलियां थी।आहूजा उस दोपहर अपने शोरूम पर नहीं था। वह लंच करने घर गया था। शोरूम पर तफ्तीश के बाद नानावती अपनी कार में लौट आए। कार मालाबार हिल की ओर मुड़ गई थी, मंजिल थी नेपियर सीरोड की सितलवाड़ लेन का एक फ्लैट। इसी फ्लैट में प्रेम आहूजा रहता था।लहराते बाल, घनी भौहें और पहनावे की खास समझ, आहूजा एक बारगी किसी फिल्‍मी हीरो से कम नहीं लगता। 34 साल का वो युवक शानदार डांसर था। फरेब उसका हुनर था, सैन्य अधिकारियों की बीवियों के साथ इश्क खास शौक। मुंबई में उन दिनों मशहूर ब्रिटिश युगीन क्लबों और सेना की पार्टियों में वह आमतौर पर मौजूद रहता। उसके झांसे में कई महिलाएं आ चुकी थी, विशेषकर वे जो अकेली होतीं।
मन के भीतर एक तूफान उठा
उस समय के मुंबई के मशहूर टेब्लॉयड ब्लिट्ज ने आहूजा के बारे में लिखा था, ”आहूजा एक ऐसा लंपट था, जिसे दूसरों के चारागाह में मुंह डालना अच्छा लगता।” आहूजा का परिवार करांची से मुंबई आया था। वो अपनी बहन मेमी की साथ रहता था।
नानावती की कार आहूजा के फ्लैट के बाहर थी और वह शॉवर के नीचे। मर्डर के इस सनसनीखेज प्लॉट पर बाद में फिल्में भी बनीं।आहूजा नहाकर बाथरूम से बाहर आया था। उसकी नौकरानी नानावती को तीसरे फ्लोर पर बने उस अपार्टमेंट तक लाई। आहूजा के अपार्टमेंट में उन्होंने खामोशी से कदम रखा। कम से कम चेहरा देखकर ये कहना मुश्किल था, मन के भीतर एक तूफान उठा हुआ है।
मेमी की चीखें ‌‌और आहूजा की लाश
नानावती सीधे आहूजा के बेडरूम में गए और दरवाजा अंदर से बंद कर दिया। चंद मिनटों तक सन्नाटा रहा और उसके बाद तीन गोलियों की आवाज सुनाई दी। आहूजा लहूलुहान जमीन पर गिरा तो उसके बदन पर बस एक तौलिया था। नानावती अपार्टमेंट से बाहर निकल आए। वहां अब केवल मेमी की चीखें ‌‌थीं और आहूजा की लाश।
नानावती अपने कार से मालाबार हिल की ओर बढ़ गए। राजभवन के गेट पर रुककर उन्होंने एक कांस्टेबल से नजदीकी पुलिस स्टेशन का पता पूछा। वे उस स्टेशन में गए और आत्मसमर्पण कर दिया। गामदेवी पुलिस स्टेशन के सभी पुलिस कर्मचारी कुछ क्षणों के ‌लिए सकते में आ गए।

—————————————————————

तारीख: 27 अप्रैल 1959, पुलिस स्टेशन, बॉम्बे

कमांडर नानावटी: मैंने एक आदमी को गोली मारी.
इंस्पेक्टर लोबो: वो मर चुका है. मुझे अभी गामदेवी पुलिस स्टेशन से ये मैसेज मिला. कमांडर नानावटी, क्या आप चाय पिएंगे?
कमांडर नानावटी: बस एक ग्लास पानी.

————————————————————

नौसेना का आला अधिकारी, खूबसूरत बीवी, अवैध रिश्ते और मुंबई की चकाचौंध के चर्चित चेहरे प्रेम आहूजा की हत्या, ये एक ऐसा मामला था, जिससे न शहर का आम-ओ-खास दहल गया, बल्‍कि न्याय प्रणाली भी हिल उठी।वेस्‍टर्न नेवल कमांड के मार्शल की सलाह पर नानावटी ने मुंबई के डिप्‍टी कमिश्‍नर के सामने सरेंडर कर दिया। नानावटी को एक सच्‍चा देशभक्‍त माना जाता था और उनके इस गुनाह का कोई और गवाह नहीं था।आहूजा की बहन मैमी नेइस बात को खारिज कर दिया कि गुस्‍से में उनके भाई की हत्‍या नहीं हुई थी।

23 सितंबर 1959. खचाखच भरे डिस्ट्रिक और सेशन कोर्ट में केस की सुनवाई शुरू हुई. जज थे आरबी मेहता. ये केस सबसे पहले ज्यूरी में चला. ज्यूरी में कुल 9 मेंबर थे. दो पारसी, एक एंग्लो इंडियन, एक क्रिश्चियन और पांच हिंदू. सरकार की तरफ से चीफ पब्लिक प्रोसिक्यूटर सी. एम त्रिवेदी ने नानावटी पर प्रेम आहूजा की इरादतन हत्या का चार्ज लगाया. डिफेंस की तरफ से फेमस क्रिमिनल लॉयर कार्ल जे खंडालावाला केस लड़ रहे थे. ये पूरा ट्रायल एक महीने चला. ज्यूरी मेंबर्स क्राइम सीन वाली जगह तक गए.

आहूजा के वकीलों ने कहा, नानावटी ने प्लान कर मर्डर किया था. सबूत पेश किए गए. 24 गवाहों की गवाही हुई. जिन इंस्पेक्टर लोबो के सामने नानावटी ने सरेंडर किया था, उनकी गवाही भी हुई. लेकिन लोबो के सामने नानावटी के कबूलनामे को ज्यूरी के सामने इसलिए भी नहीं माना गया, क्योंकि गवाही मैजेस्ट्रियल सुपरविजन में नहीं हुई थी. लोबो ने कोर्ट में लिखकर कहा:

‘नानावटी ने जब सरेंडर किया, तब उन्होंने अपनी ऑफिस ड्रेस पहने हुई थी. सफेद ड्रेस. इस ड्रेस में खून का एक भी धब्बा नहीं था.’

लोबो के इस बयान के बारे में आहूजा का केस लड़ रहे वकीलों ने कहा, ‘ऐसा इसलिए हुआ क्योंकि नानावटी ने आहूजा को जानबूझकर दूर से मारा, ताकि कोई सबूत न रह जाए.’ डिफेंस के वकीलों ने कोर्ट में तमाम सबूत पेश किए, कि प्रेम आहूजा की मौत महज एक हादसा थी. नानावटी की तरफ से सेल्विया ने भी कोर्ट में गवाही दी. मंजर कोर्ट का कुछ यूं था कि दो दिन नानावटी विटनेस बॉक्स में खड़ा रहा.

मर्डर का लव ट्रॉयंगल

सेल्विया और नानावटी ने कोर्ट में कहा:

‘मैंने प्रेम आहूजा को इरादतन नहीं मारा. हां मैं प्रेम आहूजा के पास गया था. ताकि उससे पूछ सकूं कि क्या वो मेरी पत्नी सेल्विया से शादी करेगा. और मेरे बच्चों का ख्याल रखेगा. क्योंकि मेरी वाइफ सेल्विया को उससे प्यार हो गया था. लेकिन प्रेम आहूजा ने बात करने की बजाय झगड़ना शुरू कर दिया. प्रेम आहूजा ने मेरे सवालों के जवाब में कहा, ‘क्या मैं हर उस औरत से शादी कर लूं, जिनके साथ मैं बिस्तर पर सोया हूं. गेट आउट फ्रॉम हेयर.’ इसके बाद हम दोनों में झड़प हो गई. दोनों की झड़प में रिवॉल्वर लिफाफे समेत नीचे गिर गई. मैंने जल्दी से रिवॉल्वर उठा ली. प्रेम मुझसे रिवॉल्वर छीनने लगा, इसी झड़प के दौरान दो गोलियां चली. अगर मैं सच में प्रेम आहूजा को मारना चाहता तो मैं उसे तब ही गोलियों से छलनी कर देता, जब वो ड्रेसिंग टेबल के सामने खड़ा था.’ –

नानावटी, विटनेस बॉक्स में

आहूजा के साथ जब तक मैं फिजिकल नहीं हुई थी, तब तक वो हमेशा वादे करता था कि वो मुझसे शादी करेगा. लेकिन जब हम दोनों ने सेक्स कर लिया. उसके बाद वो अपनी बात से पलट गया. प्रेम आहूजा से मेरे रिलेशन के बारे में जब मैंने नानावटी को बताया तो उसने मुझसे पूछा कि क्या वो शादी करेगा. मेरे पास इस बात का जवाब नहीं था. मैं चुप थी. नानावटी ने मुझसे कहा कि वो आहूजा से मेरे बारे में बात करने जा रहा है कि क्या वो तुम्हें अपनाएगा. मैंने नानावटी से बहुत कहा कि वो ऐसा न करे, आहूजा तुम्हें गोली मार देगा. लेकिन वो नहीं माना. और कहा- तुम मेरी फिक्र मत करो. ये अब मायने नहीं रखता. वैसे भी मैं खुद को मार दूंगा. जब मेरे पति नानावटी ने ऐसा कहा तो मैंने उसकी बांहें पकड़कर उसे रोकने की कोशिश करते हुए कहा- तुम्हारी कोई गलती नहीं है, तुम खुद को क्यों मारोगे

.- सेल्विया

नानावटी का जलवा
केस की सुनवाई के दौरान नानावटी की दीवानगी हर तरफ थी. कोर्ट की गैलरी में लड़कियां सज धज कर आती थीं. द न्यू यॉर्कर की जर्नलिस्ट एमिली हाहन के मुताबिक, लड़कियां केस की सुनवाई के लिए ऐसे सजकर आतीं, जैसे ओपेरा जा रही हों. मैडल और सफेद नेवी ड्रेस में कमांडर नानावटी कमाल लगता था. लोग नानावटी से मुहब्बत करने लगे थे.

पारसी और सिंधी समुदाय के बीच मनमुटाव

नानावती पर चले मुकदमा की दुनिया भर में चर्चा हुई । मामले में शुरुआती किरदार तीन ही थे, लेकिन बाद में राम जेठमलानी और विजय लक्ष्मी पंडित जैसी श‌ख्सियतों का नाम केस से जुड़ा। उस जमाने के मशहूर पत्रकार और ब्लिट्ज के संपादक वीके करांजिया ने भी केस में अहम भूमिका निभाई।ब्लिट्ज ने उस दौर में जैसी रिपोर्टिंग की, उसे मुल्क का पहला मीडिया ट्रायल माना गया। सेशन कोर्ट से सुप्रीम कोर्ट तक तकरीबन ढाई साल तक केस चला और करांजिया ने नानावती को बरी करने के लिए ‌अपने अखबार का भरपूर इस्तेमाल किया।
करांजिया पारसी थे और नानावती भी। इसलिए करांजिया की सहानुभूति स्वाभविक तौर नानावती की ओर रही, जबकि जेठमलानी ने प्रेम आहूजा की ओर से मुकदमा लड़ा। दोनों ही सिंधी थे। ये एक ऐसा केस था, जिसकी चर्चा बड़ापाव की दुकानों पर भी हुई और पांच सितारा पार्टियों में भी। ये केस पारसी और सिंधी समुदाय के बीच मनमुटाव का कारण भी बना।

भगवान की नजर में कोई अपराध नहीं

नानावटी के वकील कार्ल खंडालावाला ने ज्यूरी के सामने कहा, ‘प्रेम आहूजा की मौत बस एक हादसा है. नानावटी के खिलाफ एक भी पुख्ता सबूत नहीं है. कमांडर नानावटी ने इस देश के कानून, भगवान की नजर में कोई अपराध नहीं किया है. मैं किसी दया या सिम्पेथी की उम्मीद नहीं करता हूं. मैं बस चाहता हूं कि फैक्टस के आधार पर फैसला हो.’प्रेम आहूजा और सरकार की तरफ से केस लड़ रहे वकील त्रिवेदी ने कहा, सबूत ये साफ कह रहे हैं कि नानावटी ने जानबूझकर प्रेम आहूजा का मर्डर किया. सारे सबूत नानावटी के खिलाफ हैं. लेकिन इस केस की एक्सपशनल सर्कमस्टेंशस को देखते हुए ज्यूरी नानावटी को गिल्टी करार देने का फैसला वापस ले सकती है.’

नानावती को माफ करने की मांग

पारसी समाज ने नानावती के केस को मध्य वर्ग के नैतिक मूल्यों से जोड़ दिया और आहूजा के क्रियाकलापों को चरित्रहीनता करार दिया। उन्होंने राष्ट्रपति और राज्यपाल से नानावती को माफ करने की मांग की।नानावटी पारसी थे तो आहूजा सिंधी और केस की वजह से दोनों समुदायों के बीच तनाव का माहौल था।1961 की सर्दियों में सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने नानावती को उम्रकैद की सजा सुनाई, इसके बाद नानावटी ने सजा के खिलाफ वर्ष 1961 में सुप्रीम कोर्ट में अपील की। सुप्रीम कोर्ट ने नवंबर 1961 पर हाईकोर्ट के फैसले को बरकरार रखा। हालांकि कुछ दिनों बाद सरकार ने उन्हें माफी दे दी और वे जेल से बाहर आ गए। नानावती पर धारा 302 के तहत मुकदमा दर्ज किया गया था, हालांकि जूरी ने उन्हें 302 के तहज दोषी नहीं माना। जूरी ने अपने फैसले में उन्हें 8-1 के मत से निर्दोष करार दिया।
बांबे हाईकोर्ट ने उस फैसले को रद्द कर दिया और निचली अदालत में दोबारा ट्रायल चला। प्रेम आहूजा मर्डर केस भारत में जूरी ट्रायल का अंतिम केस बना। सरकार ने इसके बाद जूरी ट्रायल का सिस्टम ही खत्म कर दिया। कई रिपोर्टों में ये भी कहा गया कि नानावती के पक्ष में दिया गया जूरी की फैसला मीडिया की दलीलों से प्रभ‌ावित था।

नानावटी तीन वर्ष जेल में बिताने के बाद रिहा

बता दें नानावटी पारसी कम्युनिटी से था. और प्रेम आहूजा सिंधी. ऐसे में नानावटी को रिहा करने को लेकर एक पॉलिटिकल डर ये भी था कि कहीं सिंधी बुरा न मान जाएं. लेकिन तभी एक सिंधी ट्रेडर भाईप्रताप को फर्जी लाइसेंस मामले में जेल हो गई. भाईप्रताप को सिंधियों का सपोर्ट था. भाईप्रताप की रिहाई की मांग की जाने लगी. तर्क दो दिए गए. क्राइम छोटा है और दूजा फ्रीडम फाइटर बैकग्राउंड.

महाराष्‍ट्र की राज्‍यपाल विजय लक्ष्‍मी पंडित को  सिंधी बिजनेसमैन भाई प्रताप की दया याचिका मिली थी। भाई प्रताप को माफी देने की बात पर ब्‍यूरोक्रेट्स सहमत थे और फिर नानावटी को भी माफी देने की बात हुई। विजय लक्ष्‍मी पंडित ने कहा कि भाई प्रताप को नानावटी को माफी मिलने के बाद माफी दी जाएगी। उन्‍होंने यह फैसला दोनों समुदायों में शां‍ति और सौहार्द स्‍थापित हो सके इस वजह से दिया था।उधर, प्रेम आहूजा की बहन मैमी ने लिखित में नानावटी को माफ करने के लिए अपील की. मैमी ने कहा कि उसे नानावटी के रिहा होने से कोई दिक्कत नहीं है. दोनों पार्टियों के बीच समझौते की बात की जाने लगी. तब काम आए वरिष्ठ वकील राम जेठमलानी. जेठमलानी ने दोनों ग्रुप्स के बीच समझौता कराया. तब मुंबई की गवर्नर थीं नेहरू की बहन विजयलक्ष्मी पंडित. गवर्नर विजयलक्ष्मी पंडित ने एक ही दिन नानावटी और भाईप्रताप को जेल से रिहा कर दिया. तारीख थी 17 मार्च 1964. तीन साल से कम वक्त जेल में रहने के बाद नानावटी जेल से रिहा हो चुका था. इसके बाद वह पत्‍नी सिल्विया और बच्‍चों के साथ कनाडा चले गए और फिर किसी ने उनका नाम नहीं सुना। वर्ष 2003 में जब उनकी मौत हुई तो कई वर्षों बाद उनकी खबर भारत आई। आज भी सिल्विया अपने बच्‍चों के साथ कनाडा में ही हैं।

‘आहूजा तौलिया’ और ‘नानावती रिवॉल्वर’

करांजिया ने उस समय नानावती का खुलकर समर्थन किया। नानावती केस की रिपोर्टिंग का नतीजा ये था कि ब्लिट्ज की कॉपिया उस समय आठ गुना कीमत पर बिकीं। इस केस की लोकप्रियता ऐसी थी कि ‘आहूजा तौलिया’ और ‘नानावती रिवॉल्वर’ जैसे खिलौने भी बाजार में बिके पारसियों ने नानावती के समर्थन में मुंबई में सभाएं की, जिनमें कॉसाजी जहांगीर हॉल में की गई सभा सबसे बड़ी मानी जाती है। उस सभा में तकरीबन 8 हजार लोग शामिल हुए। नौसेना और पारसी पंचायत ने भी नानावती का समर्थन किया।

नेहरू के करीबी  मेनन के रक्षा सहायक

नानावती की रिहाई का किस्सा भी रोचक रहा। वे दरअसल वीके कृष्‍ण मेनन के रक्षा सहायक रह चुके ‌थे। कृष्‍ण मेनन उस समय के प्रधानमंत्री जवाहर लाल नेहरू के करीबी थे। जब नानावती का केस चल रहा था, नेहरू की बहन विजयलक्ष्‍मी पंडित महाराष्ट्र की राज्यपाल थीं।माना जाता है कि एक ईमानदार और जांबाज अधिकारी की छवि, अपने पक्ष में बने माहौल और नेहरू के करीबियों के करीबी होने का नानावती को लाभ मिला और वे रिहा हो गए।केएम नानावती का केस बॉलीवुड ‌‌फिल्मों और उपन्यासों का विषय भी बना। 1963 में आरके नय्यर ने सुनील दत्त को लेकर ‘ये रास्ते हैं प्यार के’ बनाई। ये संस्पेंस थ्रिलर थी। फिल्म बॉक्स ऑ‌‌फिस पर औंधे मुंह गिरी। फिल्म में डिसक्लेमर दिया गया था कि इसके सभी पात्र और कहानियां काल्पनिक हैं।

फिल्म की नायिका लीला नायडू ने 2010 में अपनी किताब में संकेत दिया कि ‘ये रास्ते हैं प्यार के’ का स्क्रीनप्ले नानावती केस से पहले ही तैयार हो गया था। गुलजार ने 1973 में विनोद खन्ना को लेकर ‘अचानक’ बनाई। ये फिल्म नानावती केस पर ही आधारित थी और बॉक्स ऑफिस पर सफल रही। इंदिरा सिन्हा ने नानावती केस को ही आधार बनाकर एक किताब लिखी -‘दी डेथ ऑफ मिस्टर लव’।सलमान रुश्दी की किताब मिडनाइट चिल्ड्रन के एक चेप्टर ‘कमांडर साबरमती बैटन’ को नानावती केस से प्रेरित माना गया।

K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1962 SC 605 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567

K. M. Nanavati v. State of Maharashtra

AIR 1962 SC 605 1962 SCR Supl. (1) 567

Commander K. M. Nanavati vs. State of Maharashtra was a 1959 Indian court case where Commander Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati, a Naval Commander, was tried for the murder of Prem Ahuja, his wife's lover. The incident received unprecedented media coverage and inspired several books and films such as the 1973 film Achanak and 2016 film Rustom. Commander Nanavati, accused under section 302, was initially declared not guilty by a jury, but the verdict was dismissed by the Bombay High Courtand the case was retried as a bench trial. This was among the last cases to be heard as a jury trial in India, as the government abolished jury trials soon after in most cases except for Parsis who still have Jury Trials for their Matrimonial Disputes. Nanavati was finally pardoned by Vijayalakshmi Pandit, newly appointed Governor of Bombay and sister of Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

Background

Kawas Nanavati

Kawas Manekshaw Nanavati (1925–2003), a Parsi, was a Commander with the Indian Navy and had settled down in Mumbai with Sylvia, his English-born wife and their two sons and a daughter.

With Nanavati frequently away on assignments for long periods of time, Sylvia fell in love with Prem Bhagwan Ahuja, a Sindhi friend of Nanavati's. In her testimony in court, Prem's sister Mamie Ahuja, stated that Prem had agreed to marry Sylvia, provided she divorced her husband. However, this was contradicted by the letters written by Sylvia (admitted as Sylvia's testimony), where she expressed her desire to divorce Nanavati and marry Prem, but she doubted whether Prem had the same intentions. In a letter dated (case is of 1959 so how can she write letter on 24th may 1960, she wrote "Last night when you spoke of your marrying me and the various other girls you might marry, something inside me snapped and I knew I could not bear the thought of your loving someone else…".

Shooting

Sylvia Nanavati

On 1 November, Nanavati returned home from one of his assignments and finding Sylvia aloof and distant, he questioned her. Sylvia, who now doubted Prem's intention to marry her, confessed about the affair to her husband. Nanavati dropped his family at the Metro Cinema, for a show he had promised to take them to, but excused himself and headed straight to confront Prem Ahuja. When Sylvia was asked in court, why she went to the theatre, leaving her agitated husband behind, she answered, "I was upset myself and I did not think clearly then. I was not indifferent to my husband killing himself… It is difficult to explain these things to children, so I took them to the cinema.

Nanavati went to the Naval base, collected his pistol on a false pretext from the stores along with six bullets, completed his official duties and proceeded to Prem Ahuja's office. On not finding him there, he went to Ahuja's flat and found him there. There was a verbal confrontation between the two men; according to Nanavati's account related in court, he had asked Ahuja whether the latter intended to marry Sylvia and accept their children. After Prem replied in the negative, three shots were fired and Prem Ahuja dropped dead. Nanavati headed straight to confess to the Provost Marshal of the Western Naval Command and, on his advice, turned himself over to the Deputy Commissioner of Police.

Jury trial

The crux of the case was whether Nanavati shot Ahuja in the "heat of the moment" or whether it was a premeditated murder. In the former scenario, Nanavati would not have been charged under the Indian penal code for culpable homicide, with a maximum punishment of 10 years. This is because he could have invoked exceptions 1 and 4 of section 300 of IPC (which defines murder). Exception 1 states:

"Culpable homicide is not murder if the offender, whilst deprived of the power of self-control by grave and sudden provocation, causes the death of the person who gave the provocation or causes the death of any other person by mistake or accident."

Exception 4 states:

"Culpable homicide is not murder if it is committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and without the offender having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

Explanation – It is immaterial in such cases which party offers the provocation or commits the first assault."

In the latter scenario (i.e. premeditated murder), Nanavati would be charged with murder, with the sentence being death or life imprisonment. Nanavati pleaded not guilty and his defence team argued it a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder, while the prosecution argued it was premeditated murder.

The jury in the Greater Bombay Sessions Court had only task: to pronounce a person as 'Guilty' or 'Not Guilty' under the charges. They could not indict any accused nor could punish the accused. The jury in the Greater Bombay sessions court pronounced Nanavati as not guilty under section 302 under which Nanavati was charged, with an 8–1 verdict. Mr. Ratilal Bhaichand Mehta (the sessions judge) considered the acquittal as perverse and referred the case to the Bombay High Court.

The prosecution argued that the jury had been misled by the presiding judge on four crucial points:

1. The onus of proving that it was an accident and not premeditated murder was on Nanavati.
2. Was Sylvia's confession grave provocation for Nanavati, or any specific incident in Ahuja's bedroom or both?
3. The judge wrongly told the jury that the provocation can also come from a third person.
4. The jury was not instructed that Nanavati's defence had to be proved, to the extent that there is no reasonable doubt in the mind of a reasonable person.

The court accepted the arguments, dismissed the jury's verdict and the case was freshly heard in the high court. Without any proper study comparing existing judicial systems and without any effort to improve the system, it was claimed that jury had been influenced by media and was open to being misled, the Government of India abolished jury trials soon after in most cases except for Parsis who still have Jury Trials for their Matrimonial Disputes.

Retrial

After Nanavati's acquittal by the Jury was dismissed, his retrial was held in the Bombay High Court.

Defence version

In the Bombay High Court, the defence put forth their version of the incident, for which there were no witnesses other than the two men, and no evidence. Hearing Sylvia's confession, an enraged Nanavati wanted to shoot himself, but was calmed down by Sylvia, who told him that he was not to be blamed and there was no reason that he should shoot himself. Since Sylvia did not tell him whether Prem intended to marry her, Nanavati sought to find it out for himself.^[1]When Nanavati met Prem at the latter's bedroom, Prem had just come out of the bath dressed only in a white towel; an angry Nanavati swore at Prem and proceeded to ask him if he intended to marry Sylvia and look after his children. Prem replied, "Will I marry every woman I sleep with?", which further enraged Nanavati. Seeing Nanavati go for the gun, enclosed in a brown packet, Prem too went for it and in the ensuing scuffle, Prem's hand caused the gun to go off and instantly kill him.

Prosecution version

The prosecution's version of the story and their counter-points against the defence's version, was based on replies by witnesses and backed by evidence. The towel that Ahuja was wearing was intact on his body and had neither loosened nor fallen off. In the case of a scuffle, it is highly improbable that the towel would have stayed intact. After Sylvia's confession, a calm and collected Nanavati dropped his family to the theatre, drove to his naval base and according to the Navy log, had acquired a gun and rounds, under a false pretext. This indicated that the provocation was neither grave nor sudden and that Nanavati had the murder planned. Ahuja's servant Anjani testified that three shots were fired in quick succession and the entire incident took under a minute to occur, thus ruling out a scuffle. Nanavati walked out of Ahuja's residence, without explaining to his sister Mamie (who was present in another room of the flat) that it was an accident. He then unloaded the gun, went first to the Provost Marshal and then to the police to confess his crime, thus ruling out that he was dazed. The deputy commissioner of police testified that Nanavati confessed that he had shot dead Ahuja and even corrected the misspelling of his name in the police record.

The High Court agreed with the prosecution's argument that the murder was premeditated and sentenced Nanavati to life imprisonment for culpable homicide amounting to murder. 

On 24 November 1961, the Supreme Court of India upheld the conviction.

Public support

The incident both shocked and riveted the entire country. Such a 'crime of passion' was considered unusual. People also found the unfolding relationships intriguing, for instance, Nanavati had known Ahuja for nearly 15 years and Sylvia stood by her husband after Ahuja's murder.

The weekly tabloid Blitz , owned by R. K. Karanjia, a Parsi himself, publicised the story, published exclusive cover stories and openly supported Nanavati. They portrayed him as a wronged husband and upright officer, betrayed by a close friend. Blitz painted Nanavati's image, as that of a man representing the ideal middle class values as against Ahuja's playboy image, that symbolised the corruption and sleaze of the bourgeois. A copy of Blitz during the trial sold for ₹2 (2.9¢ US) per copy, up from the normal rate of 25 paise (0.36¢ US). Peddlers on the street sold Ahuja Towels and toy Nanavati Revolvers.

Influential Parsis held regular rallies in Mumbai, with the largest being an event held at Cowasji Jehangir Hall, to support the Governor's decree that suspended Nanavati's life sentence and put him under naval custody, until his appeal was heard by the Supreme Court. At that rally, 3,500 people filled the hall and around 5,000 stood outside. Nanavati also received backing from the Indian Navy and the Parsi Panchayat, while the Sindhi community backed Mamie Ahuja.

Among the jurists, Ram Jethmalani led the prosecution, while Karl Khandalavala represented Nanavati.

Release

Nanavati had moved in the same social circles as the Nehru-Gandhi family for many years. He had previously worked as Defence Attaché to V. K. Krishna Menon, while the latter was high commissioner to the United Kingdom, and had grown close to the Nehrus during that time. During the time of Nanavati's trial and sentencing, Jawaharlal Nehru was Prime Minister of India and his sister, Vijayalakshmi Pandit, was governor of Maharashtra state.

All of these advantages may in other circumstances have availed Nanavati nothing, for a pardon might have been seen by the press and public at other times as a blatant misuse of power to help the crony of an influential political family. However, public opinion, in the largely conservative country, was decidedly in favour of Nanavati, seen as an upright naval officer with middle class values and a strong sense of honour. Public opinion held the sentence of life in prison was too harsh and supported a proposal, mooted by the Blitz, to grant a pardon to the naval officer. The Blitz magazine played a significant part in raising public opinion in favour of Nanavati and keeping the issue alive for over three years until the pardon was granted.

Nanavati spent 3 years in prison; it was feared that a pardon for him could elicit an angry reaction from the Sindhi community to which the Ahuja family belonged. At around this time, the government received an application for pardon from Bhai Pratap, a Sindhi trader who had been a participant in the Indian independence movement, and had been convicted for misusing an import licence. Given his freedom fighter background, and the relative smallness of his offence, the government was inclined to pardon Bhai Pratap. Finally, an application seeking pardon for Nanavati was obtained even from Mamie Ahuja, sister of the deceased. She gave her assent for his pardon in writing. Vijayalakshmi Pandit, then governor of Maharashtra, pardoned Bhai Pratap and Nanavati on the same day.

After his release, Nanavati, his wife Sylvia and their three children immigrated to Canada and settled in Toronto, Ontario. Nanavati died on 24 July 2003.

In popular culture

• Yeh Rastey Hain Pyar Ke, a 1963 suspense thriller starring Sunil Dutt, Leela Naidu and Rehman, was the first Bollywood film which seemed to exploit the case. It flopped at the box office. The film began with a disclaimer that all people and incidents were fictitious, and altered the case's outcome. Leela Naidu's 2010 book with Jerry Pinto indicates that the movie screenplay was written before the Nanavati case. It was a coincidence of the real-life case events with a similar movie storyline that led to similarities while the movie was being made.
• Achanak, a 1973 crime drama, written and directed by Gulzar, starring Vinod Khanna, Lily Chakravarty, and Om Shivpuri, was inspired by the case and was a box-office hit. In the film, Vinod Khanna, who plays an upright army officer, receives a death sentence but its execution remains inconclusive.
• Besides a Hindi book titled Nanavati ka Mukadama (Nanavati's trial), Anglo-Indian novelist Indra Sinha's The Death of Mr Love is a fictional account based on the murder. The book, spanning four decades between the 1950s and 1990s, tells the story of Mrs S, the second woman besides Sylvia, with whom Prem had a physical relationship. In the title, Love is the literal translation of Prem, Ahuja's first name.
• A fictionalized account of the case also appears in Salman Rushdie's Midnight's Children, where the case of Commander Sabarmati (in the chapter titled "Commander Sabarmati's Baton") is a fictionalized account of the Nanavati case.
• The 2016 Bollywood film Rustom, starring Akshay Kumar, is a fictionalized account of the KM Nanavati case.
• The Pooja Bhatt film Love Affair is also based on this case. It focuses on a lonely foreigner who, stuck in India, falls in love with a man (who isn't her husband) and the consequences of the affair.
• A Marathi play titled Aparadh Meech Kela by playwright Madhusudan Kalelkar is also based on this case. Arun Sarnaik played the character of Cdr.Nanawati in it.