1. This is an appeal by the original plaintiff.

2. The appellants had filed Spl. Civil Suit No. 67/1996 later on numbered as R.C.S. No. 517/2000 in the court of Jt. Civil Judge, Jr. Divn., Kallam, Dist. Osmanabad. According to the appellantorig. Plaintiff, there was partition between his grandfather Krishna and his brother Devidas. Krishna's share was inherited by Tulshiram, Shivmurti, Manohar and Manik. Share of Devidas was inherited by his two daughters Malanbai and Nilawatibai, who are defendants No. 1 and 2. Tulshiram had sold his share to one Vishwas Shivajirao Patil. Said share was subsequently purchased by plaintiff Vilas. The said share was adjacent to the share of Devidas. Defendants no. 1 and 2 executed two sale deeds dt. 04.05.1995, whereby (a) Gat No. 121, admeasuring about 2 H. 20 R., assessed at Rs. 6 = 75 (b) Gat No. 28, admeasuring about 1 H. 8 R., assesed at Rs.3=00 and (c) Gat No. 130, admeasuring about 1 H. 37 R. assessed at Rs. 4=27. were sold to defendant No.3. As per plaint, on 22.11.1978, Consolidation Scheme was implemented in village Wadgaon (Jahagir). The lands sold by defendants No. 1 and 2 were fragments in terms of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Fragmentation Act'). Sale thereof was banned except to the owner of contiguous land. Still, defendants No. 1 and 2 with ulterior motive, sold the suit land to defendant No. 3 and thereby preferential right of the plaintiff was infringed. Besides, defendant No. 3 was not an agriculturist and was not eligible to purchase the land. Defendant No. 3 contested the suit. He denied the contents. He also denied that, lands sold were fragments. He also contended that the entire lands inherited by defendants No. 1 and 2 were sold and therefore there was no bar to the sale. They denied that the plaintiff was having preferential right to purchase the land. Defendants No. 1 and 2 denied that there was any consolidation of holdings or fresh allotments of land. According to them, their old land bearing survey numbers were simply converted into gut numbers (block number). They denied the plaintiff's right of preemption. The learned Civil Judge framed the issues and held that the sales were hit by Section 7(1) of the Fragmentation Act. He held that, the plaintiff had preferential right. He partly decreed the suit in respect of sale of 54R. land from Gut No. 28 and 69R. land from Gut No. 130. The sale deeds in respect of those sales were declared null and void. Accepting the plaintiff's case of preferential right, the Collector was directed to fix the compensation. The suit with respect to land of 1H 12R. from Gut No. 21, was dismissed.

3. Aggrieved defendants preferred RCA No. 59/2009. The ld. Principal District Judge, Osmanabad framed points for determination as per Section 41 Rule 31 and held that, as the entire lands were sold, as per Section 31(3), the bar under Fragmentation Act was not attracted. He allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and dismissed the suit.

4. Heard Mr Sanjay Wakure, learned advocate for the appellant and Mr J. R. Patil, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Mr A. B. Tele, learned advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. The second appeal is admitted by framing substantial questions of law as follows:

1. Whether the suit for the prayers as made was maintainable?

2. Whether both the lower courts erred in ignoring the provisions of Section 36A of Fragmentation Act?

3. What order?

5. I answer the above questions as follows:

Question No. 1 – In the negative.

Question No. 2 – In the affirmative.

Question No. 3 – The appeal is partly allowed. The judgment and decree of both the courts below are set aside and the plaint is rejected.

6. Mr Wakure, learned advocate for the appellant submitted that, plaintiff was claiming preemption right both u/s 22 of the Hindu Succession Act as well as u/s 10 of the Fragmentation Act. However, on going through the facts referred to herein a