The Maharsha on 31b (d"h ini v'hamar) seems to be circular. He says that according to R' Meir, tiltul muktzeh is mutar on Yom Tov for ochel nefesh (really the Gemara says this), and then he says that the fruits are not muktzeh to eat since he holds you can break the wall. So it seems its mutar to break the wall (and thus move muktzeh) because he can eat the fruits (and it's ochel nefesh, and tiltul muktzeh is muter for ochel nefesh on YT), and at the same time it's mutar to eat the fruits (i.e. they're not muktzeh) because it's mutar to break the wall! This appears circular. In other words, why is it mutar to break the wall - if you say because it's for ochel nefesh, who said the fruit can be eaten? After all, R' Meir holds of muktzeh, so the fruits should be considered muktzeh and therefore not ochel nefesh, and therefore there is no basis to break the wall.
Yaron Barach, Brooklyn USA
The answer to your question is that the only reason the fruits would become Muktzah Bein Hashemashos is due to lack of permitted access. As long as there is a way to permit access, there is no Muktzah. Since Rebbi Meir permits such access on Yom Tov for the purpose of Ochel Nefesh, the fruits never become Muktzah in the first place. This is clearly the intent of the Maharsha.
All the best,
Yaakov Montrose