1. This appeal challenges the judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge in Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 1981 dated 20th December, 1986. The present Appellants are the plaintiffs in Regular Civil Suit No.85 of 1976 and the Respondents are defendants in that suit. Parties hereinafter are referred to their status as plaintiffs and defendants, for convenience.

2. At the out set, it is to be noticed that the appeal stands abated against Respondent No.1 [Tulsabai Wd/o Narayan Shinde] by the order passed on 21st June, 2006. The Respondent No.3 Ganpat is served - absent. Advocate Mr. S.Y.Mahajan is representing the Respondent No.2/ defendant No.2. The Respondent Nos.2 and 3/ defendants No.2 and

are purchasers of the suit property from original defendant No.1 Tulsabai Wd/o Narayan hinde.

3. Regular Civil Suit No.85 of 1976, filed by the plaintiffs, was for cancellation of sale-deed and possession of the suit property, which, after recording evidence, came to be dismissed by the trial Court. The unsuccessful plaintiffs, carried the matter by filing Regular Civil Appeal No.138 of 1981 in the Court of learned District Judge, Osmanabad, who, after hearing the parties, dismissed the same. It is this judgment and decree, passed by the first Appellate Court, is the subject matter of this second appeal. This

second appeal was admitted by this Court on the substantial question of law - "Is defendant entitled to benefit of the provisions of Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 which was made applicable to Marathwada Region in 1952?".

4. On behalf of the plaintiffs, I have heard Advocate Mr. V.G.Mete. According to him,

agricultural land/ subject matter of the suit, is situated at village Bhotra Taluka Paranda, district Osmanabad. This area was erstwhile part of the Hyderabad State. Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 (for short, the Act of 1937) was not made applicable to this part of the Hyderabad State at the time of its enactment. In this fact situation, analogy that in the partition of the joint Hindu family, share was allotted to Narayan, deceased husband of defendant No.1 Tulsabai and after his death, said property was being cultivated by Tulsabai, in view of the provisions of the Act of 1937, cannot be made applicable. He has invited my attention to the assent given by the President of India to Hyderabad (Application of Central Acts) Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1952). According to him, this Act had received assent from President on 15th October, 1954. Thereafter, it was published in the official gazette of the Central Government on 22nd October, 1954. He submitted that application of the Act of 1952 is provided under subsection (3) of section 1. It states that the said Act shall come into force at once. Appointed day is defined under section 2 of the said Act of 1952, meaning thereby the date on which this Act came into force. He, therefore, submits that this Act can be said to have applied to this part/ suit property (now forming part of the State of Maharashtra) on 22nd October, 1954. According to him, there is no question ofretrospective application of the provisions of said Act of 1937. He further submitted that the suit property is agricultural land and cannot be said to be within the purview of the provisions of the Act

of 1937. For this proposition he relied on a judgment of the Federal Court reported in the case of Case No.1 of 1941, a Special Reference by His Excellency the Governor-General reported in AIR 1941 P.C. 72. Tulsabai never possessed or cultivated the suit property. Tulsabai, in collusion with the revenue authorities, succeeded in getting recorded her name. Therefore, there is no question of any title initially with Tulsabai, and valid transfer of the said title by defendant No.1 Tulsabai in favour of defendant Nos.2 and 3. He also relied on a judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the matter of "Ramchandra Vishwanath Karve V/s Savitribai Bhikaji Karve" repo