MITHLESH KUMARI AND ANR. versus FATEH BAHADUR SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [1991] 1 S.C.R. 699 · Decided: 22-02-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.N. SAIKIA · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
--~ 
MITHLESH KUMARI AND ANR. 
v. 
FATEH BAHADUR SINGH AND ANR. 
--
FEBRUARY 22, 1991 
[K.N. SAIKIA AND M.M. PUNCHHI, JJ.] 
U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950-Scope 
.J...._ and object of 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950-Section 
3 (8a )-Definition of 'fragment'-Addition-Purpose of. 
B 
c 
.... -----...,/ 
U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950-Sections 
168-A, 167-0bject, scope and application of-Sale of fragments of a 
fragment to non-tenure holders~Whether hit by the provisions . 
The respondent No. 1 sued the second respondent (defendant 
D 
No. 1) and the appellants (defendant Nos. 2 and 3) for specific perfor-
mance of a contract whereunder the second respondent had agreed to 
sell his lands to the first respondent for Rs.5,000 out of which Rs.4,000 
were paid, and the balance Rs.l,000 was to be paid within 5 years 
whereafter the second respondent was to execute a sale deed in favour 
\...... of the first respondent. 
E 
The Munsif decreed the suit only for recovery of Rs,4,850 plus 
pendente lite and future interest on Rs.4,000 and this order was con-
firmed by the Civil Judge by dismissing the appeal of respondent No. 1. 
A second appeal was preferred to the High Court by respondent 
F 
No. 1 contending that the transfers in favour of the appellants, by 
respondent No. 2 were void being in contravention of Section 168-A of 
the U .P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The appel-
lants contested the appeal contending that for a transfer being hit by 
Section 168-A of the Act should be in respect of a specific piece of land 
and not a share in a holding and that the transfers were of a portion of G 
the shares of respondent No. 1 in the disputed plot. 
The High Court allowed the appeal holding that the two transfers 
made were clearly hit by the provisions of Section 168-A(2) of the Act 
and that the benefit of Section 43 of the Transfer of Property Act could 
not be availed of by the appellants as the sale deeds were void in the eye 
H 
of law. 
699 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
700 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1991] 1 S.C.R. 
The appellants in their appeal to this Court contended that the --..,r---
sale made by respondent No. 2 to the 2nd appellant being hit by the 
provisions of Section 168-A of the Act, the subject matter of transfer got 
vested in the Government and the interest of respondent No. 2 in that 
part of the holding stood extinguished on the date of transfer and that 
the sale being void, be was left only with the subject matter of transfer, 
and that the respondent No. 2 having transferred that whole portion to 
the first appellant by sale deed such transfer being a transfer of the . 
whole area it would be covered by the proviso under Section 168-A and ~ 
. .._ 
as such, the sale would not be hit by the provisions of Section 168-A. 
The first respondent contended that as the sale deeds in favour of 
the two appellants have been held to be void, the High Court rightly 
decreed the suit; that he having been in possession of the land and the 
second respondent's fragmented sales having been found to be void, 
even if the land would vest in the State, the first respondent would not 
be divested automatically and the State has to seek possession in accor-
dance with the law. 
On the question as. to what would be the effect of the two 
fragmented sales in favour of the appellants, setting aside the order of 
the High Court and remanding the matter, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The U .P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 
was passed as it was considered expedient to provide for the abolition of 
the Zamindari system which involved intermediaries between the tiller 
of the soil and the State in Uttar Pradesh and for the acquisition of their 
rights, title and interest and to reform the law relating to land tenure 
consequent upon such abolition and acquisition and to make provision 
for other matters connected therewith. [705E-F] 
2. The original Act did not def'me fragment. The def'mition of ----A:-
'fragment' was added by Section 2 of the U.P. Act XVIII of 1956 with a 
view to prevent fragmentation and promote consolidation of holdings in 
order to avoid uneconomic units. [705F-G] 
G 
3. The object of the section 168-A(l) was to prevent fragmenta-
tion of land situated in a consolidated area and transfers that would resu)t 
in fragmentation or further fragmentation shall be void and to such 
,""*( · ~ 
transfers, Section 167 will mutatis mutandis

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