MEHARBANSINGH versus BHAGWANTSINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1980] 2 S.C.R. 790 · Decided: 17-01-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.N. SHINGAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
790 
MEHARBANSINGH 
v. 
BHAGW ANTSINGH AND OTHERS 
January 17, 1980 
[P. N. SHINGHAL AND E. S. VENKATARAMIAH, JJ.] 
Madhya Bharat Zan1indari Abolition Act, 1951-S. 4(2)-Scope of. 
By virtue of section 3 ( 1) of the Madhya Bharat Zan1indari Abolition Act, 
1951, rights of proprietors in villages, Muhalas and Chaks or blocks 
settled 
on the zamindari system vested in the State free from all encumbrances. In 
so far as the mortgages \Vere concerned a mortgage \vith possession 
\vhich 
existed on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting of the property 
was deemed to have been substituted by a simple mortgage. 
The mortgagee 
who was in possession of lands under a deed of mortgage, for example 
a 
usufrnctuary mortgage, lost possession of the lauds bi operation of la\v and 
bis mortgage became e. simple mortgage from the date of vesting of the lands 
in the State. 
On the other hand a mortgagor \vho was once the proprietor of 
the lands, though lost his proprietary right in the lands becau~e of their vesting 
in the State, had to fulfil his obligation as a mortgagor to the extent of the 
amount secured under the mortgage. To alleviate the lot of such proprietors 
section 4(2) of the Act provided that notwithstanding anything contained in 
sub-section ( 1) a proprietor shall continue to remain in possession of 
his 
khud-kasht land so recorded in the annual village papers before the date of 
vesting. The expression khud-kasht is defined to 111ean "land cultivated by 
the Zamindar himself or through employees or hired labourers". 
If a person 
was a zamindar and cultivated the land himself or through employees or hired 
labourers that would be his khud-kasht cu1ti\.·ation within the 
meaning 
of 
section 2(c) of the Act, that is, in a given case if it v;as shown that a pro-
prietor had khud-kasht land \vhich was so recorded in the annual 
village 
papers before the date of vesting of the lands in the State, he was entitled to 
continue to remain in possession of those lands. 
Section 37(1) provides that 
every proprietor who is divested of his proprietary rights shall be a pacoo. 
tenant of the khud-kasht land in his possession and the land revenue payable 
by him shall be determined at the rates fixed by the current settlement for 
the same kind of land. 
In the present case, the plaintiff's suit for redemption of the mortgage \Yhich 
was an usufructuary mortgage, was decreed by the trial court in respect of 
G 
the relief of redemption but the claim in regard to 
the mesne profits 
\Yas 
disallowed. Against that decree three appeals were filed- before the District 
Court, one of them being the appeal by the plaintiffs challenging the refusal 
by the trial court to grant mesne profits. The plaintiff's appeal was partly 
allowed granting mesne profits from the date of deposit of the mortgage money 
in court. The other two appeals were dismissed. The matter v:as taken in 
appeal to the High Court by the defendants in second appeal. The plaintiffs 
ff 
also preferred a second appeal claiming full relief in so far as mesne profits 
were concerned. The High Court partly allowed the defendants' appeal hold-
ing that the plaintiffs were entitled to redeem the mortgage by paying the 
1 
/ 
\ 
.. 
I .. 
-
( ' 
• 
' 
' ... 
' • 
• 
----
• 
MEHARBAN SINGH V. BHAGWANT SINGH 
791 
mortgage money but were not entitled to get possession of the mortgaged 
,.\ 
land, since according to the High Court, the proprietary rights including the 
right to get possession bad become vested in the State -under the aforesaid 
Act. It further held that the plaintiffs were only entitled to claim cornpensa· 
tion from the Government in lieu of their proprietary rights after redeeming 
the mortgage by making payment of the n1ortgege money. 
Against the decree 
of the High Court, the plaintiffs filed an appeal before this Court in Meharban 
Singh & Ors. v. Naresfz Singfz & Ors. [1970] 3 SCR 18. 
This Court set aside 
8 
the decree of the High Court and remitted the case back to the High Court for 
a fresh decision on the question whether the lands in dispute were khud-kasht 
larxls and to p.:1ss a decree for possession if they were found to be so in view 
of sections 4(1)(f) and 4(2) of the Act. After the case went back to the 
High Court, the State Government was impleaded as a party to the suit and 
was·· permitted to file a written statement. Certain additional issues 
were 
raised by the Higb. Court on the basis of the ne"

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