GORAKH NATH DUBE versus HARI NARAIN SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1974] 1 S.C.R. 339 · Decided: 07-08-1973 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KUTTYIL KURIEN MATHEW, M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
-. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
GORAKH NATH DUBE 
v. 
HARI NARAIN SINGH & ORS. 
August 7, 1973 
(K. K. MATHEW AND M. H. BEG, JJ.] 
339 
Consolidation of Holdings Act S.5(2)-Plaintiff clailning 
that 
land 
in 
question belonged to Hindu Undivided Fan1ily-Claiming cancellation of sale 
deed in respect of land and possession of his half share-Appeal in suit pending 
In l/igh Court whef: land in quesrio'i came under 
consolidation operation-
A.ppetll wlietlier abates. 
-
The plaintil!-appellant filed the present suit for the cancellation of a sale-
deed dated 12-4-1932 to the extent of a half share claimed by him in certain 
plots of land and for the award of possession of the said half share. 
Accord~ 
ing to the plaintiff the vendor, who was his uncle had purchased the plotS" in 
question on behalf of the joint Hindu family which provided th~ funds for the 
purchase of the plots. The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's suit on 4-1-1960. 
The Di!)trict Judge allowed the plaintiff's appeal and decreed the suit on 30-4-62. 
The defendants-respondents filed a second 
appeal to 
the 
High 
Court on 
18-8-1962 which was adll)itted for hearing. During the pendency of the second 
appeal. a notification under s. 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act of 
1954 was published in the Government Gazette on 22-10-1966 declaring 
that 
th! village in which the plots in dispute were situated had come under conso-
lidation operations. Consequently, the defendarits-appellants filed an applica· 
tion under s.5 of the Act in the second appeal. The High Court by its judg-
ment dnted 5-5-1967 after dismissing the defendants' applications under s.'5 of 
the A.ct dealt with the merits of the case and 
accepted the 
appeal 
of the 
defendants-appellants. The High Court took the view that section 5 did not 
apply to a case in which the possession could be granted only after cancellation 
of the sale-deed to the extent of half before aw·arding possession. In 
the 
plaintiff's appeal to this Court by :special leave, the defendants-respondents 
raiseJ a preliminary ob.iection to the hearing of the appeal on merits on the 
ground that the High Court should ha've held that the plaintiff's suit before 
it h"J abated under s.5(2) ~f the Act. 
A11owing the appeal, 
HELD : A distinction can be made between cases where a document 
is 
wholly or partially invalid so that it can be disregarded by any court or autho-
rity and one where it has to tie actually set aside nefore it can cease to have 
legal effect. 
~o\n alienation 'made in excess of power to transfer would be, to-
the extent of the excess of power, invalid. An adjudication on the effect of 
such a purported alienation would be necessarily implied in the decision of a 
dispute involving confliC~ing claims to rights or interests in land which are the 
subject matter of consolidation proceedings. The existence and quantum of 
rights claimed or denied will haVe to be declared by consolidation authorities 
which would be deemed to be invested with jurisdiction, by the necessary 
implication of their statutory powers to adjudicate upon such rights and inter .. 
est'i in land, to declare such documents effective or ineffective. But, where 
there is a document the legal effect of which can only be taken away by 
S·'!tting it aside or its cancellation, it could be urged that the consolidation 
authorities have no power to cancel the deed, and, therefore, it must be held 
to be binding on them so long as it is not cancelled by a court having the 
power to cancel it. 
Jn the present case the plaintiff's claim was that the sale 
of liis half share by his uncle was. invalid, inoperative, and void. 
Such 
a 
claim could be adjudicated upon by c:_onsolidation courts. Accordingly it must 
be deC!ared that the suit of the plaintiff had abated under s.5 of the Act. 
[l42C-FJ 
Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh & Ors. [1%8] 2 S.C.R. 
p. 
95 
and 
/agarnath Shukla v. Sita Ram Pande & Ors. 1969 A.L.J. 768, referred to. 
340 
SUPREME COIJRT REPORTS 
[ 1974] 1 S.C.R, 
Since the High Court had dismissed the plaintiff's appeal it was not necesary 
A 
for the defendants to appeal against the order of the High Court dismissing 
their application under ss. 4 & 5 ot th: Act, and the defendants were accord-
ingly not precluded from raising the preliminary objection based on ss. 4 & 5 
of the Act in this Court. [343D-El 
[Appropriate directions given] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1579 of 1967. 
B 
Appeal

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