BINDHA PRASAD & ORS. versus BHAN DATT (DEAD) BY L.RS.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 7 · Decided: 10-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT

Judgment (excerpt)

' } 
BINDHA PRASAD & OR'S. 
A 
v. 
BHAN DATT (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
DECEMBER 10, 2007 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
B 
Land laws and agricultural tenancy: 
UP Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - ss. 
134 and 137 -Application for Bhumidari rights by Sirdar - Deposit C 
of requisite land revenue - Entitlement to Bhumidhari rights -
Effective date - Held,· Sirdari becomes entitled to Bhumidhari 
rights with effect from the date of deposit of amount as 
contemplated bys. 134 - Certificate graated uls 137 also relates 
back and is effective from the date of deposit of the amount - On D 
facts, tenant deposited stipulated rent for conversion of Sirdari 
rights into Bhumidhari rights and on the same day executed sale 
deed, but died before issuance of requisite certificate - In such 
case, death of tenant would not invalidate the sale deed executed 
regarding Sirdari plots. 
E 
'R', tenant, deposited 20 times rent to convert the Sirdari 
rights into Bhumidhari rights. The same day R executed sale 
deed in respect of Sirdari plots. However, R died before any 
judicial order was passed for issuance of Sanad or Sanad was 
issued in favour of R. The courts below and the High Court held F 
that till the death of R, certificate of Sanad was not issued in 
favour of R, the grant of Bhumidhari Sanad could not relate 
back to the date of deposit of rent and would not entitle the 
tenant to execute sale deed in respect of the Sirdari plots on the 
date of deposit of 20 times rent. Hence, the present appeal. 
G 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. On the application being made and the 
7 
H 
8 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Addi.) S.C.R. 
A stipulated times of land revenue being paid, the sirdari becomes 
entitled 'with effect from the date on which the amount had been 
deposited' to a declaration that he has acquired rights mentioned 
in section 137 of the U.P. Zamidari Abolition and Land Reforms 
Act, 1950. The Section clearly specifies the date with effect 
B from which the rights would stand acquired i.e. the date on which 
the amount contemplated by section 134 is deposited. This clearly 
obliviates the uncertainty of the point of time when the title is 
transferred by fixing the date as being the date on which the 
;. 
amount is deposited. It would be immaterial as to when the 
c declaration under Section 137 was made because that declaration 
must necessarily take effect from the date when the amount is 
deposited. Prior to the amendment of sub section (2) of section 
137 of the Act it was only the grant of certificate under sub 
section (1) of Section 37 that the Sirdar from the date thereof 
D became or was deemed to be Bhumidar of the holding or the 
share in respect of which the certificate was granted. The 
amendment of sub section 2 of section 137 brought section 137(2) 
in line with section 134. The two provisions read together clearly 
E 
provide. that as and when the certificate 1Jnder Section 137 is 
granted, it must relate back and be effective from the date on 
which the amount referred to in sub section (1) of Section 134 
was deposited. [Para 8) [11-A, B, C, D, E] 
Dea Nandan and Anr. v. Ram Saran and Ors. 2000 (3) SC 
F 440 -
relied on. . 
1.2. The judgment of the High Court affirming the decisions 
of the trial court and the first appellate court is set aside. 
(Para 9] [12-C] 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1579 
of 2001 
From the final Judgment and Order dated 18.02.1998 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad (Lucknow Bench). Lucknow in 
fT 
Second Civil Appeal No. 187 of 1979. 
J 
BIND HA PRASAD & ORS. v. BHAN DATT (DEAD) 
9 
BYL.RS. [PASAYAT,J.] 
S.C. Paul, Roopa Paul, Satwinder Kaur, Mohinder Singh, S.S. A 
-.,; 
Munde and Rekha Pandey for the Appellants. 
Rishi Malhotra for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the 
judgment of a learned Single judge of the Allahabad High Court 
dismissing the Second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 
of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the 'CPC'). The 
Second appeal was by the defendant in a suit filed for cancellation of c 
a sale deed executed by one Raghoram in respect of Sirdari plots. The 
suit was decreed, the defendant's first appeal was dismissed. The 
cross-objections of the plaintiff were also dismissed by judgment and 
decree dated 5 .1.1979. The second appeal was directed against the 
judgment an

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