LexAMAR SINGH & ANR. versus ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B
AMAR SINGH & ANR.
v.
ASSTI. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS.
AUGUST 19, 1988
[R.S. PATHAK, CJ. AND LALIT MOHAN SHARMA, J.]
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1951: s. 169-
Bequest-Bhumidhar vesting life estate in wife and remainder in their
daughters-Interest of life estate holder-Nature of-Whether could get
enlarged defeating the bequest-Testator's personal law-Whether
attracted.
The Bhumidhar bequeathed life estate to his wife and the remain-
der in favour of the daughters. On his death the wife entered in posses-
sion of the land and executed a will in favour of the appellants. In a
proceeding under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act the C~soli-
Ii> .dation Officer accepted the claim of the daughters (respondent Nos. 6
and 7) to Bhumidhari rights. That decision was reversed in appeal by
the S 'ttlement Officer, but restored on revision by the Assistant
Director of Consolidation. The High Court dismissed the writ petition.
In this appeal by special leave it was contended for the appellants
F.
that for determining the heirship of a Bhumidhar, the personal law
applica!>le. to him must be held to be excluded by the provisions of the
U.P. Z~mindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1951 dealing with
succession exhaustively, and that Bhumidhari right is njit consistent
with limited inte.rest and wh~never such a ~ight vests in a person, he
becomes the absolute owner.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD: The holder of a Hindu widow's estate is the owner of the
property subject to certain restrictions on alienation. The whole estate
is for the time vested in her and she represents it completely. Her right
q
is of the nature of a right of property, her positi,!ln is that of an owner
and so long as she is alive no one has any vested interest in the
succession. [526H-527B] ·
H
Moniram Kolita v. Keerry Kolitany; 7 I.A. 115 and Janaki Ammal
v. Narayanasami Aiyeri [1916] 43 I:A. 207, referred to.
524
AMAR SINGH v. ASSTI. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [SHARMA,J.] 525
In the instant case, however, the personaf law applicable to the
. testator and his wife is not attracted at all. The wife did not get the
limited interest of a Hindu widow as recognised under the Hindu Law.
What was bequeathed by her husband was· a life estate as understood
under the English Law. She did not enter into possession as an heir. She
got the land u'nder a will. The right of a Bhuniidhar with transferable
rights to ·bequeath his holding or any part thereof by a will ·is expressly
recognised by s. 169(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition· and Land
Reforms Act. While bequeathing his Bhumidhari right in favour of his
daughters he could subject it to a life estate in favour of his wife. The
·interest of the life estate balder thus continued to be a life estate and _did-not __ _
get enlarged defeating the bequest in favour of the daughters. They shoul<j,
therefore, be recognised as Bhumidhars. [527C, 526G, 527B, s2sq{ 526B]
Ba/bhadra v. Board of Revenue, [1981] Allahabad Law Journa_I
781, approved.
A
B
c
· Ramji Dixd & Anr. v. Bhrigunath & Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 767 and
Prema Devi v. ft Director, ·Consolidation, AIR 1970 -All 238,
D
distinguished.
· ·
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2791
of 1988.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.1986 of the Allahabad
E
High Court in Civil WFit·Petition No. 9502 of 1980.·
Satish Chandra and D.K. Garg for the Appellants.-
'Mahabir Singh, N.S. Malik.and ·P.D. Sharma ·for the Respon-
dents.
·
'
· F
The Judgment of the Court was· delivered by
SHARMA, J. The question involved in this case is whether a
Bhumidhar with transferable rights while bequeathing his Bhumidhari
right in favour of certain beneficiaries can subject it to a life estate in : G
favour of another beneficiary, and if he is held to be so authorised,
whether the interest of the life estate holder shall continue to be" a life
estate or shall get enlarged defeating the bequest in favour of the other
beneficiaries.
2. The Bhumidhar of the. disputed land Chukkhan executed a . H
526
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1988] Supp. 2 S.C.R.
A will directing that life esta.te will tie vested in his wife Mst. Gilia and
the vested remainder in their daughters-present respondent nos. 6 &
7. Smt. Gilia entered in possession of the land on Chukkhan's death
and executed a will in favour of the present petitioners. On her death a
dispute arose in a proceeding under the Consolidation of Holdings ActExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.