MISHRI LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. versus DHIRENDRA NATH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [1999] 2 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 06-04-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MISHRI LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. 
A 
v. 
DHIRENDRA NA TH (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
APRIL 6, 1999 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND UMESH C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Tenancy and Land Laws: 
Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951-Ss.2(a)&(c) 3,4(2), 
5&6-"Khudkasht" lands-Vesting in State-Rights of Zamindar-Mortgage C 
deeds-Mortgaged property including Khudkasht land-Suit for redemption 
of mortgage-A/lowed by trial court-Confirmed by High Court-Validity 
of-Held, ''Khudkasht'' land does not vest in State-Subsisting interest of 
Zamindar continue to exist-Mortgager entitled to claim redemption of 
mortgage. 
Precedent 
Doctrine of ''stare dec.isis' '-Applicability of-Constitution of India, 
Article 141. 
Words & Phrases 
''Proprietor'', ''Khudkash~.' '-Meaning of in the context of Sec.2 (a)& (c) 
of the Madhya Bharat Zamindar( Abolition Act, 197 I. 
Respondent-Zamindar executed two mortgage-deeds in favour of appellant 
D 
E 
for securing loan against certain properties.including "Khudkasht" lands. F 
The Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951 came into force for 
vesting the proprietary rights in the State by abolishing the zamindari 
system. Respondent-mortgagor filed a suit for redemption ~f mortgage. The 
suit was contested by appellantee-mortgagee on the ground that respondent-
mortgagor has no right to redeem the mortga~ed property in view of the Act. 
However, the trial court, decreed the suit holding that respondent-mortgagor G 
was entitled to redeem the mortgage. On appeal, High Court confirmed the 
said decree. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELd: 1.1. Under the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951, H 
453 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1999) 2 S.C.R. 
A "Khudkasht" lands does not vest in the State and the subsisting interest of 
the Zamindar shall continue to exist. 
The mortgagee is not entitled to claim any better title than he has prior 
to the enactment of the statute. Thqs, both the trial court and High Court 
were justified in allowing the respondent-Zamindar's claim for redemption 
B of mortgage. [456-G-H; 457-C-D] 
!.2. Under section 4 (2) of the Act, there is a categorical expression 
of statutory intent that the land which has not been recorded as Khudkasht 
land is liable to vest in the State. Conversely thus, the intent of the legislature 
is loud enough to indicate that while Zamindari or intermediary interest was 
C being abolished, due care has been taken to protect the Khudkasht land and 
allowed the subsisting interest of the Zamindar to continue so as to enable 
the Zamindar either to cultivate himself or through employees or hired 
labourers and in that event the same would be out of contemplation of the 
statute. The statute has put an embargo even on the mortgagee ofKhudkasht 
D land by providing that the mortgagee would not be able to upgrade his 
entitlement or status and the possession of Khudkasht land stands transferred 
from him to the Zamindar by operation of law. [456-H; 457-A-C) 
1.3. The definition of the word "Proprietor" means a person as respects 
a village, muhal or land settled on zamindari system owning whether in trust 
E or for his own benefit, such village, muhal or land. The definition of 
"Khudkasht" under section 2(c) referring therein land cultivated by the 
Zamindar himself or through employees or hired labourers, read with section 
4(2), makes it abundantly clear that section 2(a) cannot but mean that it is 
the Zamindar or proprietor only who has.been allowed by the statute to obtain 
F 
the benefit. [457-D-E] 
2.1. The decision of this Court in Meharban Singh 's* case that 
Zamindars are entitled to remain in possession of Khudkasht land under the 
Act has to be followed on the doctrine of "stare decisis". The law as settled 
by this court in the said case, has stood the test of time and if at this juncture 
G a contra opinion is expressed, it will open up a series of conflicts and 
consequent litigation and thereby disturbing settled position of law in the 
State of Madhya Pradesh. Thus, the High Court rightly proceeded on the 
basis of Maharban Singh 's case and decided the issue in its proper perspective. 
[464-C-E] 
H 
*Maharban Singh v Naresh Singh, AIR (1971) SC 77, relied on. 
MJSHRI LAL v. DHIRENDRA NA TH [BANERJEE. J.) 
455 
Budha v. Ami/al, (1990) 4 JT 804, distinguished. 
2.2. It is true that the doctrine of "stare decisis" has no statutory 
sanction and the same is based on a rule of convenience and expediency and 
A 
as als

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