JUDGMENT - G.N. VAIDYA, J.:---The petitioner, in the above Special Civil Application was declared to be a surplus holder to the extent of 16 acres and 20 gunthas, under the Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961, by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal No. 2, Jalna, that order was confirmed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. After the above Special Civil Application was filed on June 17, 1976, the petitioner has filed the Civil Application No. 2138 of 1976 to amend his original petition by adding grounds challenging the validity and propriety of the order of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal. 2. The petitioner has also filed Civil Application No. 2803 of 1976 for leave to produce documentary evidence to show that the child by name Ganjanan was born to the petitioner at 11.00 Oclock on June 24, 1976 and also to produce the birth extract relating to the child as well as a decree passed in R.C. Suit No. 93 of 1976, in the Court of Joint Civil Judge (J.D.), Buldhana. The decree is passed at the instance of the wife of the petitioner against the defendants therein for specific performance of the agreement of sale subject to certain conditions mentioned therein. 3. Two points were urged in support of the Special Civil Application by Mr. Agrawal, the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The first point was as one more son was born to the petitioner on June 24, 1976, within the period of gestation which must have been commenced prior to October, 2 1975, the child in the womb must be considered as the child born for the purposes of law. In support of his contention Mr. Agrawal has relied on a decision of this Court in (Raghunath Ramchandrar Kebra v. State of Maharashtra)1, 1975 Mh.L.J. 603. 4. The second point urged by Mr. Agrawal was that the petitioners wife had agreed to sell section No. 9 acres and 23 gunthas of the village Bharoswadil to the defendants and she had also filed the suit in 1969 prior to the 26th day of September, 1970, and therefore, the said should be excluded from the holding of the petitioner. 5. It is manifest that the evidence of birth of the child could not be produced by the petitioner before the leaned Tribunals. 5. It is manifest that the evidence of birth of the child could not be produced by the petitioner before the leaned Tribunals. It is also clear that the petitioners for some reasons did not produce the certified copy of the decree, dated February 25, 1975, before the two learned Tribunals, and Mr. Agrawal pointed out that before the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, it was admitted on behalf of the respondents that section No. 55/2 was sold through a registered sale deed by the petitioner and his wife, in the year 1975, that is, after the material date. However, Mr. Mehre, the learned Assistant Government Pleader says that the record which he had received from the Tahsildars office, does not show that there was any such sale-deed. Mr. Mehre, therefore, submits that the so-called admission cannot be relied upon by Mr. Agrawal. But the two learned Tribunals have arrived at the conclusion, that the landholder continued to be in possession of the land as the owner and that finding should not be disturbed by this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 6. So far as the first contention of Mr. Agrawal is concerned, the matter must go back to the file of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal for allowing the petitioner to lead proper evidence with regard to the birth of his son and also to the inclusion of the son for purpose of the declarations to be made under the Ceiling Act. Even with regard to the second point, under the decree, the sale was to be effected only if certain conditions were to be fulfilled. It is not clear whether the sale was actually effected. The petitioner must be considered to be the holder despite the decree for the specific performance if the areas are held by him as defined in section 2(14) of the Ceiling Act. The petitioners wife continues to be the owner if any sale deed is not executed by them. 7. However, as the suit appears to have been filed prior to September, 26, 1970, for purposes of sections 8 and 10 and in pursuance of the decree and in particular, as the sale-deed appears to have been effected in accordance with the terms and conditions, it cannot be ignored as per Explanations to sections 8 and 10(1) of the Ceiling Act. These questions go to the root of the matter of declaring the holdings of the petitioner. I am, therefore, of the view, that this question has to be thoroughly investigated and enquired into by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal after giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner to lead additional, relevant and admissible evidence on the point. 8. The Special Civil Application is, therefore, allowed, with the amendments prayed in Special Civil Application No. 2138 of 1976. The documents produced by the petitioner in Civil Application No. 2802 of 1076 may be sent to the Tribunal or returned to the petitioner at his discretion for being produced in accordance with law before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal. 9. The order passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal on May 4, 1976 and the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on June 17, 1976 are both set aside and quashed. The case is restored to the file of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal No. 2, Jalna, to be heard and disposed of in accordance with the law after giving a fair opportunity to the petitioner and all other persons concerned or interested in the lands in dispute if any. 10. As a fresh opportunity is being given to the petitioner to lead fresh evidence, the petitioner should pay the costs of the respondents. Rule in the Special Civil Application is made absolute. In view of the order, no other orders are called for in the two Civil Applications referred to above. -----