JAMSHED JAHAN BEGAM & ORS. versus LAKHAN LAL & ORS.

Citation: [1970] 2 S.C.R. 566 · Decided: 25-09-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.M. SHELAT · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

S66 
JAMSHED JAHAN BEGAM & ORS. 
v. 
LAKHAN LAL & ORS. 
September 25, 1969 
[J. M. SHELAT, C. A. VAIDIAL!NGAM AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
B 
U.P. Encumbered Estates Act (25 of 1934), ss. 14, 19 and 24, and 
V.P. Zcmindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act (1 of 1951)-liecre. 
under Encumbered Estates Act-If could be executed against bhumidhari 
rights granted under the Abolition Act-Trees of debtor-When cottll ?e 
proceeded against in execution. 
The predecessors·in·interest of the appellants were 
Iaodlord~ ownin~ 
;an estate including agricultural land, trees, groves etc., in U.P .. and were 
heavily indebted to the respondents. 
Most of the debts wer~ secured. 
On the application of the landlords proceedings were taken under the U.P. 
Encumbered Estates Act. 1934, ;nd a decree was passed under s. 14(7) 
of the Act in favour of the respondents in 1938. The nature ru.J e~tc11t 
of property liable to attachment and sale, as. required by s. I 9 ( 21 (b) of 
ithe Act, _,vere furnished to the executing authority. 
By virtue of a noti~ 
.fication under the U.P. 
Zamind<..ri Abolition and Land Reforms Ac;. 
1950, the estate vested in th.e State, and new rights, namely, bilumidhari 
rights in the lands in the estate, were created in 1952 in favo11r .::f the 
appellants who were the successors-in.interest of the landlords. 
In 1959. 
the respondents applied under s. 24 of the Encumbered Estat~s Act to 
·recover the amount decreed to them, by proceeding against the bhumidhari 
right~ and trees belonging to the appellants. 
On the question whether: (1) the bhumidhari rights, and (2) the trees, 
couid be proceeded against. 
HELD : 
(I) Though the respondents were mortgagees their rights 
as sucn were exringurs.1ed under the .E::ncumbereJ Estates Act and the 
dcc.ree in their favour under the Act was vnly a simple money ·decre~ \.Yhich 
was not executable except under the provisions of the Act. 
Under s. 24 
c 
D 
E 
.execution can be levied from any property or rights, other than proprie-
F 
.tary rights in land, which are reported under s. 19 as liable to be attached 
and sold. On the passing of the U.P. Abolition Act the propri<'arY 
rights of the landlords in the land vested in the State and thereafter, the 
appellants had no proprietary ri$!:hts left in them. 
The bhumidhari rights 
being new rights created for the first time in favour of. the appellant:; under 
the Abolition Act, are not proprietary rights. 
In the present case, the 
requirements of ss. 19 and 24 have been complied with, even though 
the bhumidhari ri12:hts were not mentioned as bein~ liable to attachment 
G 
.and sale. because, (i) under s. I9(2)(b) the requirement is only to report 
tne nature and extent of the property liable to attachment and sale dOd 
not the interests or rights: cf the debtor in the property; and (ii) the c!ec're~ 
unde.r the Encumbered Estates Act was passed in 1938 while the bliutni· 
.dhari rights were created only in 1952, and hence, could not be spec.ificnllv 
mentioned in the decree. 
When the Encumbered Estates Act 
p~rmit.;: 
the respondents to levy execution against the property of the debtor othrt 
than the proprietary riglits in land, and when there is no prohibition in 
H 
the Abolition Act against execution of a decree obtained under the Encum-
bered E5tales Act, against the bhumidhnri ri~hts. the respondents \\'ere 
.entitled to proceed a~ainst such ri~hts. [57$ A-13; 577 13-E; G; 578 A.Fl 
-
A 
B 
c 
JAMSHED BEGAM v. LAKHAN (Vaidialingam, l.} 
561 
Rana Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd. [1962] 2. S.C.R. 
441, followed. 
(2) Under s. 6(a) of the Abolition Act and s. 3(6) of the ti.Pc 
Tenancy Act, 1939, the right title and interest of intermediaries in trees 
anu grove·land, but not in trees constituting a grove, cease, an<l vest 
in the State. 
Since the trees constituting a grove have not vested in the 
State and could not have formed the subject of creation of bhumiJhc;ri 
rights they are the debtor's property and, are Hable to be proceeded against 
in execution under s. 24 of the Encumbered Estates Act. 
Even if the 
appellants got bhumidhari rights over the trees constituting the 
gi:ove·, 
they could be proceeded against because, bhuntidhari rights could 
be 
proceeded against in execution. [580 B, C-E] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil 
Appeal No. 101& 
of 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the order dated October 15, 1965' 
of the Board of Revenue, U.P. in Revision No. 2-E of 1964· 
Saharanpur. 
J. P. Goyal and

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