MOHANRAO TATOBA PATIL Vs. PILU MARUTI PATIL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE father of this appellant by name Tatoba and his three other sons by name Shamrao, Anandrao and Sarjerao and the appellant sold the lands Survey No. 130/9 admeasuring 2 acres and 2 gunthas and Survey No. 129/3 admeasuring 20 gunthas from village Gudhe by registered sale deed dated 6th March, 1968 for Rs. 5,000/- to respondent No. 1. It was sold for family necessity. Respondent No. 1 was put in possession. On the same date an agreement of reconveyance was executed in their favour by respondent No. 1 agreeing to convey the lands if the amount of Rs. 5,000/- was repaid within ten years. Consolidation Scheme came to be introduced in the Village in 1969 and it was completed in 1971. Out of those lands, three gat numbers came to be formed. They were given Block Nos. 1335, 1389 and 1517. Block No. 1335 came to be numbered as new Block No. 275. It admeasured 25 Acres.

(2.) NOTICE dated 23rd May, 1977 was served upon the defendant No. 1 (respondent No. 1) to accept Rs. 5,000/- and execute the reconveyance. However, the respondent No. 1 replied the notice on 7th June, 1977 and refused to reconvey the lands. Hence, the suit came to be filed for specific performance of the said deed of reconveyance and for possession. The suit came to be dismissed by the trial Court on 9-8-1989 holding that the plaintiffs were not entitled for reconveyance as change in the nature of the lands has taken place due to Consolidation Scheme and only 25 Ares of land i. e. Block No. 275 was allotted to respondent No. 1 under Consolidation Scheme. The appeal also came to be dismissed on the ground that considering the provisions of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947, (hereafter referred to as "consolidation of Holdings Act") the appellant is not entitled to claim reconveyance. This is challenged here.

(3.) AT the admission of the appeal, both the sides were heard and this appellant restricted his claim to 25 Ares of land i. e. Block No. 1335 (new Block No. 275 ). The substantial question of law framed was whether the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act would apply and whether the Appellant is entitled to get reconveyance of the said land. It is clear from the discussion of the appellate Court that it was contended on behalf of the respondent No. 1 that in view of the provisions of the Consolidation of Holdings Act, the appellant is not entitled to get reconveyance. The point framed by the Appellate Court itself is clear in that respect. The learned Counsel for the respondents did not press the same seriously. He only contended that in view of the provisions of section 31 (1) (a), the appellant is not entitled to claim reconveyance. Section 31 (1) (a) reads as under:-