MEHARBANSINGH AND OTHERS versus NARESHSINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1970] 3 S.C.R. 18 · Decided: 27-10-1969 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. RAMASWAMI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

18 
MEHARBANSINGH AND OTHERS 
v. 
NARESHSINGH AND OTHERS 
October 27, 1969 
[V. RAMASWAMI AND I. D. DUA, JJ.] 
Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act Xlll of 1951-S. 4(1)(!)-
Proprietary rights vesting in S:ate-Klzud-kc..sht land allowed to be retain· 
ed in possession-Land whether khud-kaslit have to be first gone into--
Notice to the State, necessity of. 
A 
B 
The appellant filed a suit for redemption of a mortgage. The lower 
courts decreed the suit. 
The Hi!jh Court held that in view of the provi-
C 
sions of the Mad)lya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act XIII of 1951 the 
appellants were entitled to redeem the mortgage but disentitled 
to 
get 
possessicn of the mortgaged land since under the Act the proprietary 
rights including the right to possession vested in the State. In appeal 
to this Court it was urged that High Court did not afford the appellants 
an opportunity to show that the land in question was Khud·kasht and, 
therefore in according with section 4 they were entitled to remain in 
possession thereof. 
D 
• 
HELD : The precise question requiring decision 'by the High Court 
• 
in the present case \.\'as lost sight of and not properly adv.erted to. 
Under 
the Act the proprietor, notwithstan.Pin"g any other consequences 
of the 
vesting in the State, is entitled to continue to retain possession of his 
Khud-kasht land which is so recorded in the annual village papers before 
•' 
the date of vesting.' 
In the present case both the contesting parties claim 
E 
for themselves actual possession of the land in dispute as Khud-kasht and 
also assert that the relevant entries in the annual village papers before the 
date of vesting showed them in such possession. On this basis they both 
claim right to retain possession even against the State. 
These rival con-
tioversial claim·s pressed by both the parties was the central ques.tion in-
volving pToper appraisal of the material on the record and this basic dis-
pute had to be first adverted to and judicially determined and thereafter 
the Court had to consider the applicability of the relevant provisions of 
F 
Act XI1I of 1951 to the facts found. As the question of vesting of title 
in the State was also of vital importance it was fit and proper for the 
Courts below to have issued notice to the State a·s well thereby enabling 
it to be impleaded as a party, if it so desired. [25D-26B] 
Haji Sk. 
Subban v. 
Madho 
Rao, 
[1962) Supp. 
1 S.C.R. 
123, 
distinguished. 
[The case was remitted to the High Court for a fresh decision]. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1438 of 
1967. 
G 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
September 27, 1962 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Gwalior 
H 
Bench in Civil Appeal No, 310 of 1960. 
S. T. Desai and P. C. Bhartari, for the appellants. 
•• 
A 
MEHARBANS!NGH V. NARESHSINGH (Dua, J.) 
I!> 
B. C. Misra, Bhajan Ramrakhyani and Urmila Kapoor, {or 
respondents Nos. 1 to 4, 8 and 10 to 12. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Dua, J. This is the plaintiffs' appeal by special leave from a 
B 
common judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge of the 
Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior dated September 27, 
1962 partially allowing the defendants' second appeal and dis-
missing that of the plaintiffs. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
It is not necessary .to state the detailed facts of the case. Facts 
necessary for the purpose of this appeal alone may briefly be 
stated. In May, 1939 Ramie Singh and Jomdar Singh created 
a mortgage of the suit land in favour of Munshi Singh for a sum 
of Rs. 2,242. 14/-. It is said that in May, 1943 notice given by 
the mo1 tgagors for redemption of the mortgage was refused by 
the mortgagee. In June, 1943 the suit giving rise to the prerent 
appeal was instituted for redemption of the mortgage. Some 
other persons who were found to be in possession of the land, 
claiming to be tenants, were also impleaded as defendants. . On 
May 25, 1951 Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act XIII of 
1951 was enforced. It appears that an application to amend the 
plaint as a result of the r.ew enactment was disallowed by the 
trial Court, but on revision the Madhya Pradesh High Court by 
its order dated October 10, 1955 reversed the order of the trial 
Court and permitted the plaintiffs to amend 
the plaint. 
The 
pleadings after the amendment gave rise to nearly 17 issues on 
the merits. 
On October 10, 1958 the suit was decreed in res-
pect of the relief for redemption but claim in

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