ORAL JUDGEMENT. 1. The original plaintiff has challenged the judgment and decree dated 22.04.1992 delivered by the Additional District Judge, Bhandara in Regular Civil Appeal No.128/1990. The said appeal was filed by the present respondent no.1 Smt. Surajbai challenging the judgment and decree dated 20.08.1985 delivered by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sakoli in Regular Civil Suit No.189/1981 whereby the suit filed by the original appellant came to be decreed. The original appellant has expired during the pendency of the appeal and on 20.02.1998 his legal heirs 1 [A] to 1[E] have been brought on record. The Appellant no.1[C] Babudas expired on 24.06.2007 and his legal heirs one Hemin and Dharamdas filed Civil Application No. 1916/2008 for coming on record. The application is within time and it has not been opposed by other side, hence the same is allowed. Necessary amendment be carried out within three days. 2. The original appellant Premdas, filed Regular Civil Suit for declaration and injunction. He contended that suit field bearing gut no.139, ad-measuring total 7.92 Acres or 3 H. 20 R was in his possession and his possession could not have been disturbed by other defendants, particularly defendant no.1 Surajbai, his ex-wife. His case was said land belonged to his mother Kundanbai and after her death he was entitled to succeed to it. The defendant no.1 before the trial Court was his ex-wife while defendant no.2 was his daughter-in-law. Defendant no.3 was his grand-son, while defendant no.4 was his sister. The plaintiff . Premdas contended that because of wrong action on the part of the Consolidation Officer in issuing a certificate under Section 24 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation on Holdings Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as .the 1947 Act. for short), only in the name of his son Chudaman, his ex-wife Surajbai was trying to take advantage of situation which arose after the death of Chudaman. Chudaman expired on 9.7.1981 and thereafter name of defendant no.1 Surajbai and defendant no.2 Kesarbai was recorded in the revenue records as owners of this land. Original plaintiff pointed out that widow of his son Chudaman, his grand-son were residing with him as members of his family. The trial Court framed issues and found that certificate issued under section 24 of the 1947 Act, could not transfer title in favour of Chudaman and therefore after death of Kundanbai, her son became owner. Original plaintiff pointed out that widow of his son Chudaman, his grand-son were residing with him as members of his family. The trial Court framed issues and found that certificate issued under section 24 of the 1947 Act, could not transfer title in favour of Chudaman and therefore after death of Kundanbai, her son became owner. It accordingly decreed the suit. Regular Civil Appeal was filed by Surajbai alone and Lower Appellate Court has found that Kundanbai orally gifted suit property to son of original plaintiff i.e. to Chudaman. It also found that registration of said certificate under section 24 of the 1947 Act, cured the defects in oral gift and it was in compliance with the provisions of Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act. It therefore, allowed the Regular Civil Appeal filed by Surajbai and dismissed the Civil Suit of original plaintiff. Thereafter this Second Appeal has been admitted on 3.8.1993 by mentioning that ground nos. 12 and 13 in memo of appeal shall be the substantial questions of law for its adjudication. Those grounds are as under :- 12. Whether the certificate issued under Section 23 of the Bombay Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation Act, 1947 is equivalent to the gift deed on the basis of the certificates issued under Section 24 of the Fragmentation Act. The Lower Appellate Court can treat the said certificate as gift deed and hold that the donee has brought a solid title to the suit land ? 13. Whether the Consolidation proceedings the Consolidation Officer, can issue a certificate under section 24 without exchange of land and if issued in the name of the single member of the joint family with the title of the property can be transferred in favour of such persons ?. 3. In nut shell the issue is to find out whether certificate under section 24 of the 1947 Act, can confer ownership upon Chudaman and divest original plaintiff Premdas of the suit property. There is no dispute about description of the suit property between the parties. 4. I have heard Advocate Shri V.R. Choudhari, for appellants. No body appeared for respondent today and even yesterday there was no appearance. 5. Advocate Shri Choudhari, points out that the Lower Appellate Court has concluded that Kundanbai gifted property to Chudaman. There is no dispute about description of the suit property between the parties. 4. I have heard Advocate Shri V.R. Choudhari, for appellants. No body appeared for respondent today and even yesterday there was no appearance. 5. Advocate Shri Choudhari, points out that the Lower Appellate Court has concluded that Kundanbai gifted property to Chudaman. But then, widow of Chudaman and even son of Chudaman who are residing as family members of original appellant did not oppose the suit filed by the original appellant / plaintiff. He invites attention to the written statement filed by them to show that they admitted title and possession of the original plaintiff . Premdas. He further argued that the Lower Appellate Court has not recorded any finding about possession of suit field and has only given importance to certificate issued under section 24 of the 1947 Act. He points out that said certificate is not proved by examining any Officer or any of the defendants and it is not exhibited. He further states that the entire approach of the Lower Appellate Court to this issue is erroneous and shows total non application of mind. According to him the certificate under section 24 of the 1947 Act, is not a substitute for procedure prescribed under section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. He further states that Section 24 of the 1947 Act itself has no application in the present facts, as there was no Consolidation i.e. change or alteration, any order or any exchange of land. He therefore states that both the questions as formulated above needs to be answered in favour of the present appellants and the appeal needs to be allowed by restoring the judgment and decree of trial Court. 6. Perusal of the record shows that it is the original plaintiff . Premdas who only entered witness box. There was no other witness examined on behalf of the plaintiff and none of the defendants entered the witness box. The defendants have also not examined any body. In his evidence plaintiff / Premdas has spoken about his relationship with the parties and about his ownership. In cross examination he accepted that during Consolidation survey name of Chudaman came to be recorded in the Revenue Records, and that was at the instance of his mother Kundanbai. He further accepted that after death of Chudaman name of Surajbai appeared in revenue records. In cross examination he accepted that during Consolidation survey name of Chudaman came to be recorded in the Revenue Records, and that was at the instance of his mother Kundanbai. He further accepted that after death of Chudaman name of Surajbai appeared in revenue records. He in re-examination stated that no land of Chudaman was exchanged in favour of Kundanbai when the Consolidation took place. He further stated in answer to the Court question, that Kundanbai did not transfer suit land to Chudaman. Thus in view of this evidence it is apparent that no certificate issued under section 24 of the 1947 Act was shown to Premdas and its contents were not established. The original certificate is on record and it appears to have been issued on 30.06.1973. It shows the area of land as 7.92 Acres with name of Chudaman through his grand mother Kesarbai as his guardian. On reverse there is original seal and signature of the Sub Registrar, Sakoli showing that the said certificate was registered on 14.08.1973. However as already stated above no body has been examined to prove the contents of this document. 7. Even if it is presumed that document is admissible in evidence, the said document issued under section 24 of the 1947 Act does not have the effect of transferring title to Chudaman. Section 24 of the 1947 Act reads as under :- 24. Certificate of Transfer : (1) The Consolidation Officer shall grant to every owner to whom a holding has been allotted in pursuance of the scheme of consolidation 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. (2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force no stamp or registration fee shall be payable in respect of such certificate. Thus a duty is cast upon the Consolidation Officer to issue certificate to every owner to whom holding has been allotted in pursuance of a scheme of Consolidation. The further language clearly shows that the certificate can be issued to a person to whom holding has been transferred in pursuance of the Consolidation scheme. Thus a duty is cast upon the Consolidation Officer to issue certificate to every owner to whom holding has been allotted in pursuance of a scheme of Consolidation. The further language clearly shows that the certificate can be issued to a person to whom holding has been transferred in pursuance of the Consolidation scheme. The transfer envisaged is on account of adjustment of areas with adjacent owners, so as to prepare a viable and workable agricultural plot of land. Thus certain portion of adjacent land owner may be required to be given to other owners for the purpose of such scheme and therefore only provisions has been made by the legislature to issue a certificate to such owner to whom the adjacent land has been transferred under the scheme with a provision for registration of such certificate under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. There is also a provision under sub-section [2] which exempts such certificate from payment of stamp duty or registration fee. The Consolidation Officer has not allotted or transferred any land to Chudaman while implementing the Consolidation scheme. Such allotment or transfer is possible only in favour of a person who is already a owner before such scheme is undertaken. 8. In the present case, it appears that the deceased Kundanbai wanted the land to be gifted to her grand son i.e. Chudaman, but then there is no formal gift deed as required by provision of Section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. Provisions of Section 123 are very specific and gift of immovable property may be effected by executing a registered document duly attested by two attesting witnesses. This procedure in section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act has admittedly not been followed in the present matter. The provision of Section 24 of the 1947 Act, do not exempt any donor from following the procedure prescribed under section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. Exemption from payment of stamp duty or registration fee given by section 24[2], is not attracted and applicable when a gift deed as required by section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act is tendered for registration. 9. The Lower Appellate Court has addressed itself to this issue in paragraph no.10 of its judgment. Exemption from payment of stamp duty or registration fee given by section 24[2], is not attracted and applicable when a gift deed as required by section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act is tendered for registration. 9. The Lower Appellate Court has addressed itself to this issue in paragraph no.10 of its judgment. It has basically found that from the evidence of original plaintiff it appeared that Kundanbai had a desire to give suit land to Chudaman and she gave it accordingly through a memorandum of Consolidation Officer. It recorded that Kundanbai was alive till 1976 and Consolidation Officer recorded name of Chudaman on 13.12.1971. It further found that the certificate under section 24, was duly registered and therefeore all formalities of a gift was substantially complied with. The certificate removed defects in the oral gift and therefore could not be said to be illegal. The Revenue Officer i.e. the Consolidation Officer acted in the course of its duties and completed the records and there was nothing wrong in it and in the certificate as issued. It is further observed that owner Kundanbai was estopped from denying the truth of the transaction and her title got extinguished with the registration of the said certificate. The Court further concluded that therefore Chudaman got a valid title and as such original plaintiff did not get any title thereafter through Kundanbai. It also found that Kundanbai never revoked the gift till her death and after Chudaman's death original plaintiff being his father was a Class II heir. Chudaman died as a member of Hindu Undivided Family and after his death, defendant nos. 1, 2 and 3 succeeded to the suit lands jointly. In view of this finding it has reversed the judgment and decree of trial Court. Once it is held that section 24 of the 1947 Act operates in totally independent area and has got no bearing on Section 123 of Transfer of Property Act, it is clear that entire application of mind by the Lower Appellate Court cannot be countenanced. The machinery provided under 1947 Act could not have been used for transfer of title to a person who was not owner of the land forming subject matter of Consolidation scheme. The judgment and decree of Lower Appellate Court is therefore unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly question nos. The machinery provided under 1947 Act could not have been used for transfer of title to a person who was not owner of the land forming subject matter of Consolidation scheme. The judgment and decree of Lower Appellate Court is therefore unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Accordingly question nos. 12 and 13 above are answered in favour of the present appellant by holding that the Lower Appellate Court erred in treating the certificate as gift deed and in conclusion that Chudaman got a valid title through it to suit land. The Consolidation Officer in the course of Consolidation scheme issued a certificate under section 24 of the 1947 Act in the name of Chudaman when he was not owner of the land dealt with by him under the provisions of 1947 Act. Accordingly, Second Appeal is allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22.04.1992 delivered by the Additional District Judge, Bhandara in Regular Civil Appeal No.128/1990 is hereby quashed and set aside. The judgment and decree dated 20.08.1985 delivered by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Sakoli in Regular Civil Suit No. 189/1981 is hereby restored. However, in the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to cost.