JUDGMENT - Waikar M.R. J.-This second appeal is preferred by the original defendant against the decree passed against him by the trial Court and confirmed in appeal by the District Judge, Bhandara. 2. Defendant Lataru had entered into an agreement with the plaintiff on.8th April 1965,(Ex. 19) to transfer 1 .acre of land out of Khasra No 61 /1 ;of village Chilhati, district Bhandara. Since the defendant did not execute a sale-deed, the suit for specific performance of contract was filed, or in the alternative for refund of the consideration of Rs. 340 that was paid. 3. The defence raised was that it was a loan transaction which was negatived by both the Courts below The other plea raised was that this agreement is prohibited by the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1947 (hereafter called the Act). Though the trial Court did not decide the issue, the learned District Judge, observed that the agreement of sale was not prohibited under any of the provisions of the Act and the decree for, specific performance was confirmed by him. 4. In this, second appeal, though the respondent (plaintiff) was duly served, he remained absent 5. Shri Padhye, the learned counsel for the appellant submitted that both the Courts below were in error in holding that the transaction was not hit by the provisions of the said Act. 6. The document produced by the appellant in the first appeal and which was allowed to be produced by the learned District Judge is a certifi cate issued under section 24(1) of the Act showing that this land was allotted to the defendant (appellant) under the scheme prepared under the Act. Section 24(1) of the Act is in these terms: “24(1) The Consolidation Officer shall grant to every owner to whom a holding has been allotted in pursuance of a scheme of consolida-tion and to every person to whom a right is allotted under sub-section (6) of section 21, a certificate in the prescribed form duly registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908, to the effect that the holding has been transferred to him in pursuance of the scheme”. 7. The learned District Judge observed that section 31 of the Act in terms does not provide that the land cannot be transferred under the decree in a suit for specific performance. 7. The learned District Judge observed that section 31 of the Act in terms does not provide that the land cannot be transferred under the decree in a suit for specific performance. He further observed that there is no provision in the Act which restricts either the specific performance of contract or sale of land or giving effect to the decree passed by the civil Court for specific performance. 8. Shri Padhye referred to me sections 8, 9 and 31 of the Act and submitted that a decree for specific performance if passed would defeat the provisions of the Act. I find the submission of Shri Padhye is well founded. The sections are: “8. No land in any local area shall be transferred or partitioned so as to create a fragment. , 9. (1) The transfer or partition of any land contrary to the provi- sions of this Act shall be void. (2) The owner of any land so” transferred or partitioned shall be liable to pay such fine not exceeding Rs. 250 as the Collector may, subject to the general orders of the State Government, direct. Such fine shall be recoverable as an arrear of land revenue. (3) Any person unauthorisedly occupying, or wrongfully in posses-sion of any land, the transfer or partition of which, either by the act of parties or by the operation of law, is void under the provisions of this Act, may be summarily evicted by the Collector. 31.(1).Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, no holding allotted under this Act, nor any part thereof, shall save as otherwise provided in this section-, (a) be transferred, whether by way of sale (including sale in execu- tion of a decree of a civil Court or for recovery of arrears of land revenue or for sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue) or by way of gift, exchange, lease or otherwise; or (b) be sub-divided, whether under a decree or order of a civilCourt or any other competent authority, or otherwise, so as to create a frag-ment, without the previous sanction of the Collector. Such sanction shall be given by the Collector in such circumstances and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed.” 9. Such sanction shall be given by the Collector in such circumstances and subject to such conditions, as may be prescribed.” 9. The word “otherwise” appearing in section 31(1) following the expression “sale (including sale in execution of a decree of a civil Court or for recovery of arrears of land revenue or for sums recoverable as arrears of land revenue) or by way of gift, exchange, lease” is used in all inclusive sense, embracing all such acts-inevitably culminating in any of the transactions enumerated in the preceding clause. If a person parts with his holding in favour of another contrary to the provisions of this Act, having received the entire consideration and the parties refrain from executing any deed of conveyance and registering the same, even so such a transaction, in my opinion, would be covered by the expression “or otherwise” used in sec- tion 31(1)(a) of the Act. Similarly, if the effect of passing of a decree for specific performance of contract inevitably is to result in bringing about a transaction of sale, it would also be covered by the expression “or otherwise” appearing in section 31(1)(a) of the Act. 10. In this view of the matter, therefore, disagreeing with the learned District Judge, I find that passing of a decree for specific performance of contract would be against the provisions of this Act. The decree passed for specific performance of the contract, therefore, deserves to be set aside and the alternative claim for refund of consideration only has to be decreed. 11. In the result, therefore, the second appeal is partly allowed. The decree for specific performance of contract is hereby set aside and instead the defendant is directed to refund the consideration of Rs. 340 with costs of the suit to the plaintiff. The amount of Rs. 340 shall carry interest at the rate of Rs. 6 per cent per annum from the date of suit till realisation. The costs of the first and second appeal shall be borne by the parties as incurred. Appeal partly allowed. -----