JUDGMENT -A.S. BAGGA, J.:---This second appeal is directed against the judgment dated 19th August, 1983 of the Extra Assistant Judge, Nanded in Regular Civil Appeal No. 116 of 1981 whereby the judgment and decree dated 27th February, 1981 of the Joint Civil Judge, Junior Division, Nanded came to be set aside.

2.The dispute is between the uncle and the nephew and it pertains to one acre of land originally from Survey No. 89 situated at Village Kamlaj, Taluka and District, Nanded. Survey No. 89 admeasures 7 acres and 12 gunthas, which was partitioned. Half of this land admeasuring 3.26 acres came to the share of the respondent and was given survey and was numbered as Survey No. 89/A and the other equal half land admeasuring 3.26 acres came to be allotted in the share of the appellant and was numbered as Survey No. 89/B.

3.The appellant - Kishan (uncle) sold 2.26 acres land out of his holdings to his nephew respondent Ababuwa by registered sale deed in the year, 1970. After having sold the land to his nephew, Kishan left the village and migrated to a place known as Village Sategaon - Sangvi in Taluka Biloli, District Nanded. Thus, the respondent became owner of the land admeasuring 3.26 acres out of Survey No. 89 on account of partition which had admittedly taken place and 2.26 acres land on account of sale deed executed by the appellant - Kishan in his favour in the year, 1970. Out of total area of 7.12 acres in Survey No. 89, the respondent thus, became owner of 6.12 acres. The ownership of one acre of land remained with the appellant - Kishan who had left the village and settled in another village as stated earlier.

4.It appears that the respondent cultivated the entire portion of 7.12 acres of Survey No. 89. His name however, came to be recorded in the revenue records not only in cultivating column but also in ownership column of 7/12 extract.

5.It appears that the appellant - Kishan returned to the village and found that his nephew respondent was shown in the revenue record as owner of not only 6.26 acres but also of one acre of land which is the subject matter of the suit. He, therefore, moved the revenue authorities for correction of the record and succeeded in those proceedings. The judgment of Assistant Collector and the Additional Collector in this respect, are on record at Exhs. 35 and 36. The appellant - original plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit land from the respondent on the basis of title. The appellant, in the suit, stated that there was consolidation scheme undertaken in village Kamlaj and the respondent managed to get the entire property of Survey No. 89 recorded in his name and got a certificate issued from the Consolidation Officer.

6.The respondent - original defendant in his written statement admitted that only 2.26 acres of land was transferred by sale deed in his favour and that, one acre land from this survey number was not the subject matter of the sale deed executed by his uncle in his favour in the year, 1970. He however, stated that he cultivated the entire land in Survey No. 89 admeasuring 7.12 acres. The consolidation scheme was undertaken and at that time, the appellant - Kishan had agreed in writing for transfer of title of the suit land for a consideration of Rs. 2500/-, out of which an amount of Rs. 2000/- was paid to him at the time of agreement. This document was placed on record along with the written statement by the respondent - Ababuwa. The learned trial Judge however, held the certificate issued under the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 in favour of the respondent not sufficient for transfer of title and the learned Judge also did not accept the document (Exh. 32) alleged agreement between the parties and proceeded to hold that the appellant continued to be the owner of the suit land and proceeded to decree the suit. Against that judgment, first appeal came to be filed by the respondent - original defendant. In appeal, the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document