1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR Second Appeal No. 115 of 2010 (Vasant Dattu Mangate ...VERSUS... Smt. Nirmalabai W/o Jagdev Mesare and others) =-=-=---=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Office Notes, Office Memorandum of Coram appearances, Court's orders of directions & Registrar's orders. Court's or Judges Order =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Mr. A.R.Patil, Advocate for the appellant Mr. A.S.Kilor, Advocate for respondents C ORAM : C.L.PANGARKAR, J. DATED : 29th MARCH, 2010. Heard learned counsel for the appellant and the respondents. This appeal is preferred by the original defendant no.1. The respondents/plaintiffs had filed a suit for declaration, eviction and possession of the suit property. It was the contention of the respondents/ plaintiffs that the suit property was allotted by the Government to the husband of respondent no.1, deceased Jagdeo, being a retired Army person, under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed that Jagdeo had no right to alienate the property. They contended that the present applicant was in wrongful possession of the suit property and they were the only owners of the suit property. The learned Judge of the trial court has found that the husband of plaintiff no.1 was allotted suit land as surplus land. He also found 2 that the Sale Deed executed by Jagdeo in favour of the present appellant/defendant was in contravention of the provisions contained in the said Act of 1961. The learned Judge, therefore, decreed the suit and feeling aggrieved by it, the appeal was preferred by defendant no.1 before the District Court. The learned 5th Ad-hoc Addl. District Judge, Akola, heard the appeal and confirmed the findings of the trial court. However, he granted liberty to the appellant to take appropriate action for grant of sanction. Feeling aggrieved by the confirmation of findings of the trial court, this appeal has been preferred. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the respondent. The first contention that was raised in the suit was that Jagdeo had no right to sell the suit property since the land allotted to him was under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling and Holdings) Act, 1961. The learned Judge of the trial court had recorded the finding on issue no.9 in the affirmative. Since the same issue was referred to the Tahsildar and the Tahsildar held that the Sale Deed executed in favour of present appellant was void under the said Act, the said finding of the Tahsildar is binding on the civil court, though the Court of Tahsildar is having limited jurisdiction. Since that finding is binding on the Civil Court, the Civil Court has rightly held the sale deed to be void. The appellate court has rightly confirmed the said finding. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law involved in this second 3 appeal. The question of law involved has been rightly decided by the courts below. There is no substance in the appeal. The same is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs. JUDGE. Diwale