BHAJYA S/0 SHYAMA KANBI versus GOPIKABAI AND ANR. ETC.

Citation: [1978] 3 S.C.R. 561 · Decided: 04-04-1978 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
• 
• 
• 
' • 
561 
BHAJYA S/0 SHYAMA KANBI 
v. 
GOPIKABAI AND ANR. ETC. 
April 4, 1978 
[R. S. SARKARIA, N. L. UNTWALIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] 
Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, (Code II of 1955), 1954 Section 151 
rfw S. 4(2) of Hindu Succession Act (Act 30), 1956-Interpretation of the 
words 'subject to his personal law' in Section 151, which provides "subject to 
his personal law, the interest of a tenure holder shall, on his death, 
pass by 
inheritance, su1vivorship or bequest as the case may be"--Whether referable 
to Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Legislation by referential incorporation-Cate-
gories of such legislation-"Personal law" includes Hindu Succession Act-
Hindu Succes~ion Act, 1956, Sections 8, 15 & 16. 
The suit land which originally belonged to Ghusya, who died before the Set-
tlement of 1918, came into the possession of his son Punjya. On Punjya death 
in the year 1936, the holding devolved on his widow Smt. Sarji who continued 
in possession of the same till her death on 6-11-1956. On the death of Sarij the 
defendants entered into wrongful possession of the land. Smt. Gopikabai, claim-
ing inheritance to the Bhumidari interest of Smt. Sarji deceased, as the daughter 
of the sister of the last male holder. Punjya, filed a suit for possession ot the 
suit land and also for the value of the crop. The d<>fetid~nt~ 
,.,..n+<>.;;tec-1 
the 
suit claiming that they were Sapindas of the last male holder, Punjya (being 
his father's brother's son's son), and as such were under the Hindu Law as 
prevailing on the date of Punjya's death, entitled to succeed to the interest of 
the deceased renure holder by virtne of Section 151 of the M.P. Land Revenue 
Code 1954, the operation of which had been saved by Section 4(2) 
of the 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 . 
The Trial Court decreed the suit; but on appeal the Additional District 
Judge set aside the decree of the trial Court and dismissed the suit. The High 
Court, in Second Appeal, restored the trial Court's decree holding that the 
plaintiff came under Clause (b) of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, and 
a8 such, was entitled to succeed in preference to the defendants who are agna-
tic relatives coming under clause (c) of that Section. 
Dismissing the appeal by special leave the Court 
HELD: (I) From the conspectus of Ss. 2(7), 2(19), 2(20) and Ss. 145, 
147, 148, 151, 168, 172 of Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 
1954, the 
following points emerge clear: (i) A 'tenure-holder' and a 'tenant' have been 
separately and distinctly defined in clauses (20) and (19) of s. 2 of the 1954 
Code. 
A 'tenant' according to the definition, holds land from a tenure-holder. 
but a. 'ten~re-holder' holds and directly from the State. 
(ii) A bhumiswami/ 
Bhum.idhan pays land revenue to the State and not rr>nt; (iii) Tenancv rights 
and rights of Bhumiswami/Bhumidhari are dealt with in separare Chaprers 
of the Code. 
Bhumiswami/Bhumidharies have permanent heritable and trans-
ferable rights in the land which cannot be taken away, except in certain cases. 
[565 G, 566 E-FJ 
(2) Even on the assumption, that S. 151 of the 1954 Code is a law for 
devolution of tenancy rights in agricultural holdings, the section 
itself, 
in 
terms, makes personal law by general reference applicable in the matter of the 
devolution of the interest of a deceased tenure holder (i.e. Bhumiswami and 
Bhumidhar). 
S1nt. lndubai v. Vyankati Vithoba Sawadhu and Ors .. A.I.'R. 1966 Born. 64 
'Kumarf Ramlali v. Mst. Bhagunti Bai ana Ors. A.I.R. 1968, M.P. 247 and 
i"l«ft11r 1111rus1ngh and Ors. v. Mst. Duka/him & Ors., A.I.R. 1974 M.P. 
141 
referred to. 
(3) (a) There are no words in section 151 or elsewhere in the Code which 
Jiu1it th.~ scope of the expression "personal law'' to that prevailing on February 
5, 1955. On the contrary the words "on his death" used in s. 151 clearly show 
A 
B. 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
562 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1978] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
that the legislative intent was that "personal law" as amended upto the date on 
which the devolution of the tenure holders interest is to be determined, shall 
to the rule of decision. 
[567 H, 568 A] 
B 
c 
(b) The Legislature can legislate on a subject by referential incorporation, 
if that subject is constitutionally within its legislative competence. Section 151 
is an instance of legislation by such method. 
The State Legislature enacted 
the 1954 Code in exercise of its power under Entry V in the Concurrent List. 
The 1954 Code had also 

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