RAMCHANDRA AKARAM SURYAVANSHI Vs. SHRIRANG HARIBHAU JADHAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellants/original Plaintiffs. On December 1, 1987 this Court admitted the Second Appeal observing that ground No.1 of Memorandum of Appeal appears to be the substantial question of law. Ground No.1 reads thus:

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that sale deed executed by the Appellants dtd. 14/5/1970 in favour of the Respondent is null and void and same is hit by provisions of Sec. 31 of Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act of 1947). He submitted that the consolidation scheme may not be applicable on the date of execution of the Agreement for sale, the consolidation scheme was however, made applicable before the sale deed was executed. He submitted that possession of area admeasuring 5 gunthas constituting 1/3rd portion of Survey No.311 was purportedly handed over to the Respondent at the time of execution of the Agreement and therefore a fragment is clearly created as a result of the said transaction.

(3.) I have considered the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Appellant. The finding of the Appellate Court is that in the Consolidation Scheme Gat Nos.1696, 1504 and 1595 were allotted to the Respondent corresponding to 1/3rd portion of survey No.311 which was purchased by the Respondent from the Appellant. The Appellate Court therefore came to the conclusion that bar created by 31(1) of the said Act of 1947 will have no application.