ANANT KIBE & ORS. versus PURUSHOTTAM RAO & ORS

Citation: [1984] 3 S.C.R. 484 · Decided: 17-04-1984 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.A. DESAI, A.P. SEN, V. BALAKRISHNA ERADI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

D 
• 
E 
F 
G 
.. 
ANANT ~BE & ORS. 
v. 
PURUSHOTTAM RAO & ORS 
April 17, 1984 
[D.A. :0ESAI,A.P. SEN AND v. BALAKRISHNAERA'n1, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959, s. 158(1) complete extintiTon 
iJf ino"l rights [and conferral of bhumiswami rights-lnam ./and~ became.· 
bhumiswami lands-fmpartibility and devolution 
by survivorship by ·rule 0/ 
lineal primo¥eniture Jost. 
. · , 
· 
· 
Words and Phrases-"in respect of land held by him"-Mean~.$ of s 
158 (IJ(b) Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code 1959. 
• 
· 
' 
In 1837 the. late Maharaja Harihar Rao Holkar 'made a grant of an 
inam of a garden to the •priest of the Holkar family. The grant of inam was 
on Putra Pautradi Vansh Paramp_ara condition- by w8.·y of parvariah i.e.,. _ 
maintenance,· 
The ihree appellants 'in the appeal were the legal heirs and successors 
·bf the grandson of the original inamdar,'and tlie !st Respondent as the sole 
· survivor of the eldest male line of the last holder, the inamdar and as also 
the.karta of the joint Hindu family. 
The appellants·planitiffs instituted a suit for partition and separate 
possession of their half-share in the joint family property ·alleging that 
defendant No. 1 in his capacity as the karta of the io.int Hindu family was 
in possession and mangement .of the joint family ·property, including the 
inam _lands. The claim was- contested by re1pondents-defendants 1 and "2 
who contenQ'ed that the plaintiffs predecessor-:in-interest had separated from 
the family by taking his share in the year 1917·18 and therefore the plaintiff• 
had no kind ofrig_ht or title in the suit property and that the inam lands and 
the properti~s acquired 'from and out.of the· in am :being irnpartible in nature. 
the succession-to which was_ governed by 'the rule of lineal primogeniture, 
the properties exclusively belonged to defendant No. 1 and \hat the conferral 
' ofbhumi$wami right on defendant No. i under S. 158 (li(b) of' the Madhya 
Pradesh Land Revenue cOde, 19S9 .made \the su.i t lands his separate and 
exdusive property and it was not part of the joint estate of the undivided 
·family. 
B 
The Additional District Judge held that the. inam lands together with 
.,the property acquired from the income of the inam . were ancestral impariible 
estate~since the same' h•d \\evolved lby s\ll'vivorshjp \lY the rµ!e of lil'l'll 
• 
l 
• 
J 
ANAN i' KIBE~. PURUSHOTTAM RAO 
P!}mpgeniture and therefore constituted if int family proper[t and.- \hat th~ ; 
~ 
rule, of impartibtlity and" the sp,ecial. mode of succession by the rule _qf _, 
iiO.eal primo&enit1:1fe were no~hio$ but iilcid~nts of .. the· inam whi'* ,st~dd 
e~tinguished by S. l58(1)(b) o(the Code. The,plaintiff's claim for partition and 
separate possession to the ex_t~nt Of their h:alf~share in. the plaint schedule , 
properties and to me'.sne profit$ were. decreed. 
On ~ppeaJ, the High Court reversed the judgment' of the Additional. 
Dis-trict Judge with regard to the jnam l~nds aqd the houses and other prbpe_rt)' : 
-acquired out of the _inam holding. '!'he High Court held that the plaintiffs 
wliO\Ver~ the jUnior ~embers of the fa_mily had no kind -of riiht or tiU~. to 
the inamlands except the right -to mainfenance and thtit defendant No. 1, 
· tbt'inamdar for the.time beins, became the bhumiswami_ of. the suit lands 
·und.er S.158(-l)(b) of the Code' whJch constituted his separate property, The 
HigJl Q>urt ho.wever main_tained· \he decree of the Addftional District Judge 
with regard to partition and sepa~ation of t1le plaintiffs' 
~hare ·or imm'?vable 
property. 
·Allowing the appeal, 
HELD: I. S.158 (1)\b) of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code,: 
)959.effected a complete extinction of the inam rights followed by simul~ 
taD.eous conferral of bhumiswami rights. Every person, in .respect of di~­
l<itid held bY him in the Madhya Biiarat regiOn, as an inamdar, at the time. 
• of-the' coming into force ·of the Code,_ became a bhumi.swami thereof, and'" 
a~Qriire'd all the rights and became subject to. all ihe liabilities of a. bhumi-
sivami under the Code. [493B) 
· 
,. 
-· 
. 
'. ', °'2. The word; "in respect of land held by him" appeiui~g in·S. (158)(1) 
(b) refer to the status and character of the tenure holder i'n relation to the 
JwJdipeon the appointed day. 
'fhe accrual of the status of bhumiswami 
b}' such: person was automatic and 'he acquired an the rights and became 
subject to an the liabilities cop.ferred_or imposed upon a .. bhtlmiswami by or 
ll,llder. th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.