JUDGMENT - Puranik S.W. J.:-This petition under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the concurrent orders passed by the Surplus Land Determina-tion Tribunal, Chandur (Rly.) and Member, Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, in Ceiling Case No. 181 /60-A (5) /75–76 of Malatpur and Ceiling Appeal No. Alc. A. 1475/76, which are filed along with this petition as ANNEX URE A B. 2. Before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal Chandur (Rly.), it was the case of the petitioner that she held 60.05 acres of land at Malatpur in Chandur Taluka of Amravati district prior to the appointed day i.e. 26–9-1970, the petitioner had entered into an agreement (souda chitti) with respondents 2, 3, 4 and 5 for the sale of the field survey number 41 /2 and that she had received part payment of the consideration in all the four transactions and she had also parted with the possession in favour of the respondents 2 to 5. Registered sale-deeds, however, had not been effected as the petitioner was ill and was suffering from diabetes and high blood pressure. The petitioner contended that she had agreed to sell three acres out of survey No. 41 /2 to Narayan Benduji Belose vide souda chitti dated 12–4-1969 and she had received Rs. 300 and remaining balance was to be received in yearly instalment of Rs. 100. She had also delivered the posses- sion of the said area to Narayan Belose. She further contended that on 15–4-1969, she agreed to sell three acres of land out of survey No. 41/2 for a consideration of Rs. 1200 to one Chandrabai Domaji and Khushyal Domaji for which she had received Rs. 300 as advance and the possession was delivr-ed to the purchasers. Similarly according to the petitioner 11 acres of land were agreed to be sold to Shantabai Ajabrao Khedkar and Yadavrao Ajabrao Khedkar for a consideration of Rs. 11,000 on 10–5-1969, out of which she had received Rs. 2000 as advance and she had handed over possession of the said field to them. The fourth and the last transaction, according to the petitioner, was for an area of 12.32 acres with one Rambhau alias Baburao for Rs. 12,500 out of which she had received Rs. 2500 as advance on the date of the agreement on 21–5-1969 and on the same day she had handed over possession of the said portion to the purchaser. The fourth and the last transaction, according to the petitioner, was for an area of 12.32 acres with one Rambhau alias Baburao for Rs. 12,500 out of which she had received Rs. 2500 as advance on the date of the agreement on 21–5-1969 and on the same day she had handed over possession of the said portion to the purchaser. It is in the light of these contentions that the petitioner contended that these lands were not in her possession on the appointed day i.e. 26th Sept. 1970 and the same could not be said to be transaction to defeat the provisions of Ceiling Act. According to her all these transactions were bona fide transfers. 3. The Surplus Land Determination Tribunal Chandur (Rly.) (District Amravati), however, held that since the souda chittis were not registered, these four transactions are invalid. He, therefore, assessed the said four fields in the holdings of the petitioner and found that she was in possession of surplus land. The petitioner had also claimed that an area to the extent of 23.33 acres was Potkharab land and was uncultivable and should not have been taken into account. However, the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Chandur Rly. held that only 10.38 acres of land was Potkharab land. The order of the Tribunal was passed on 30th March, 1976 in Ceiling Case No. 181/60-A(5)/75–76. The petitioner thereafter preferred an appeal before the Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, vide appeal No. Ale. A. 1475/76. The petitioner was represented by her Mukhtyar and he reiterat-ed the contentions raised before the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal and prayed that the order be set aside. The learned Member of the Revenue Tribunal, however, passed an order dated 20–7-1976 rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and the petitioner having no other alternative remedy has invoked an extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution by this petition. 4. Shri M. G. Solav, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner criticised the impugned orders of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal as well as of the Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on several sub- missions and claimed relief of quashing of the said orders and a declaration that the petitioner was not a surplus landholder. 5. 4. Shri M. G. Solav, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner criticised the impugned orders of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal as well as of the Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal on several sub- missions and claimed relief of quashing of the said orders and a declaration that the petitioner was not a surplus landholder. 5. Shri V. V. Naik, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for the State supported the impugned orders and stated that mere agreements of sale even though effected prior to the appointed day had not in fact resulted in transfers and as such the lands in which agreements of sale were deemed to be held by the petitioner vendor were liable for purposes of the Ceiling Act. He pointed out that the petitioner had also not adduced cogent evidence to support the case. 6. As already stated above the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Chandur (Rly.) did not consider the contentions of the petitioner regarding four agreements of sale merely on the ground that the agreements were not registered. However, the said reasoning is unfounded inasmuch as the agree- ment of sale need not be a registered document and it is the deed of transfer of sale which is compulsorily liable to be registered. A transferee under an agreement of sale after transferee is placed in possession of the immovable property under agreement of sale, is entitled to hold possession as against the vendor and resist any attempt on the part of the vendor under section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. In the instant case, the petitioner has relied on the crop statements of various years from 1969 to 1975. The certified copies of the crop statements show that the respondents 2 to 5 are in con- tinuous possession from 1969 onwards. This is a logical corroboration to the contentions of the petitioner that she had under agreement of sale termed as souda chitti delivered possession to the purchasers prior to the appointed day of 26th September, 1970. The certified copies of the crop statements show that the respondents 2 to 5 are in con- tinuous possession from 1969 onwards. This is a logical corroboration to the contentions of the petitioner that she had under agreement of sale termed as souda chitti delivered possession to the purchasers prior to the appointed day of 26th September, 1970. The learned Surplus Land Determination Tribunal has commented in paragraph 5 of his order as follows: “……Moreover according to the present provisions of Transfer of Property Act, all transactions of immovable property having value more than one hundred should be registered and hence I do not agree with the contention of the Special Mukhtyar that there is no necessity to register the document of agreement of sale. The entry in crop statement has got no evidentiary value and it can be managed with the. collusion with Talathi“ 7. As already stated above, the agreement of sale need not be by a registered document. Therefore, non-consideration of these agreements of sale by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal as well as by the Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal has prejudiced the petitioner. Further the comment of the member of the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal that the entries in the crop statements have no evidentiary value is unfounded. It is a record maintained by the Government Department in the regular course of business and in discharge of the official duties of the village officers. This evidentiary value cannot be brushed aside. Further, the com-ment passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal that such entries can be managed with collusion with Talathi is absolutely uncalled for with-out giving an opportunity either to the petitioner or to the purchaser or to the concerned Talathi. In fact, it should be clearly presumed that the entries are correct in all official documents recorded in the regular course of business. On both these counts the findings of Surplus Land Determination Tribunal and the Member of the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, clearly go to show that they have not applied their minds to these contentions of the petitioner. As the law stands even a purchaser in possession of the land by virtue of contract of sale under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and cultivates it personally on his own count, it is he who is in lawful possession of the said land as owner. As the law stands even a purchaser in possession of the land by virtue of contract of sale under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act and cultivates it personally on his own count, it is he who is in lawful possession of the said land as owner. In other words, if the original owner has in a genuine contract of sale parted with possession of some land in part performance of the contract to the purchaser and is also not in actual possession of the said land on the commencement day, it cannot be said that original owner still holds the said land within the meaning of section 3 of Maharashtra Agricultural Lands (Ceiling on Holdings) Act, 1961. The question, therefore, will always have to be analysed as to whether the agreements of sale are fraudulently executed for defeating the provisions of Ceiling Act or whether they are bona fide transactions duly corroborated by other documents like crop state-ments etc. This view has been rendered by this Court in the case of Gulabrao Anandrao Mahurev. State of Maharashtra1. It is not necessary that a transac-tion on agreement of sale should only be by a registered docu'ment. A genuine transaction covered by section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act which incorporates an equitable doctrine in the matter of transfer of property if proved by adducing cogent evidence that it had taken place before 26th September 1970, then, only because the said transaction or the docu-ment is not registered cannot invalidate the said transactionor the document. 8. In view of these circumstances and the fact that the material documents and contentions of the petitioner were not at all considered by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal as well as by the Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, I find that this is a fit case to exercise the superin- tending powers of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution to inter- fere with the concurrent findings. Hence, the following order. 9. The petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Chandur (Rly.) and the Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, are quashed and set aside. Hence, the following order. 9. The petition is allowed. Both the impugned orders passed by the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Chandur (Rly.) and the Member of Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Nagpur, are quashed and set aside. The case is directed to be remanded back to the Surplus Land Determination Tribunal, Chandur (Rly.) to re-examine the questions raised by the petitioner regarding four transactions executed by her before the appointed date i. e. 26th September, 1970 and to assess the surplus land', if any, with the petitioner. Case Remanded. -----