MOHD. IDRIS & OTHERS versus SAT NARAIN

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 15 · Decided: 10-12-1965 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
' 
~ 
• 
B 
. 
' 
• 
c 
• 
D 
• 
F 
• 
G 
• 
" 
H 
[P. B . 
M. 
MOHD. IDRIS & OTHERS 
v. 
SAT NARAIN 
December 10, 1965 
GAJENDRAGADKAR, 
C.J., K. N. 
WANCHOO, 
HIDAYATULLAH, 
V. 
RAMASWAMI 
AND 
P. 
SATYANARAYANA RAJU, JJ.J 
U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act (27 of 1934),s. 
12-Application 
under-Act repealed by U.P., Zamindari Abolition and Land R<forms 
Act (1 of 1951)-Pending proceeding if affected. 
The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act was passed on 
26th January 1951 but the right of the Zamindars vested in the State 
only with effect from 1st July 1952. Also both the Abolition Act and the 
U.P. Agriculturists' Relief Act 1934 continued on the Statute Book till 
12th July 1953. In May 1952, the respondent, who was the successor· 
in-interest of the original mortgagor, filed an application under s. 12 of 
the Agriculturists' Relief Act in the Munsif's Court, alleging that 
the 
mortgage had been paid off from the usufruct of the land and that he 
was entitled to redeem it. On 12th July 1953 the Abolition Act was 
amended by Act 16 of 1953 by which the Agriculturists' Relief Act was 
repealed. By s. 1(2) of the Amending Act, the Amending Act itseU 
was deemed to have come into force on 1st July 1952, that is, simultane• 
ously with the Abolition Act. In November 1953, the respondent's ap-
plication was decreed. In appeal, it was urged on behalf of the appel-
lant, the suce:e\sor-in-interest of the original mortgagees that as the Agri ... 
culturists' Relief Act was repealed the application under s. 12 of that 
Act was incompetent and that the respondent could not eject the appel-
lant except in accordance with the provisions of the Abolition Act. This 
contention was not accepted by the appellate court, and a revision appli-
cation by the appellant to the High Court was also dismissed. 
In appeal to this Court, on the question whether the proceeding 
before the Munsif was competent, 
HELD : The proceedings were with jurisdiction, because, they were 
not affected by the passing of the Abolition Act, or the Amending Act 
of 1953, regard being had to the provisions of s. 6 of the U.P. General 
Clauses Act in the first instance, and more so. in view of the provisions 
of s. 23 of the Amending Act 18 of 1956, which came into force before 
the proceedings between the parties had finally terminated. (23 A-BJ 
There was nothing in the Abolition Act which took away the right 
in respect of a pending action. Under the Amending Act 16 of 1953, 
the Agriculturists' Relief Act was repealed retrospectively from 1st July 
1952 only, and it is not possible to give the repeal further retrospectivity 
so as to affect a proceeding pending before that date. The jurisdiction 
of the A<slstant Collector under the Abolition Act was itself created 
from ht July 1952. but there was no provision in the Abolition Act, 
that pending proceedinl!S were to stand transferred to the Assistant Col-
lector for disposal. 
Therefore, as a result of '· 6 of the U.P. General 
Clauses Act, the proceeding could continue before the Munsif since a 
different intention does not aopear either in the Abolition Act or Amen· 
ding Act 16 of 1953. Further, s. 23 of Amending Act 18 of 1956, 
shows that by the conferral of the jurisdiction upon the Assistant Col· 
16 
SUPREME COURT lEPORTS 
(1966] 3 S.C.R, 
loctor, it was not intended to upset litigation pending before appropriate 
A 
authorities when the Abolition Act came into force. 
Since the pro-
ceeding was pending before the Appellate Coun in 1956, when the 1956 
amendment was passed, it folloW! that the provisions of the Abolition 
Act could not be applied, became the Legislature had in 1956 said ex-
pressly in s. 23, what was implicit before, namely, that pending actions 
would be governed by the 0ld law as if the new law had not been passed. 
(21 F. H., 22 F. H.] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 962 of 
1964. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
October 9, 1961 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision 
No. 1077 of 1957. 
C. B. Agarwa/a, E. C. Aganva/a and P. C. Agarwa/a, for the 
appellants. 
S. P. Sinha and M. I. Khowaja, for respondents 2 to 7. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
llidayatuUah, J. 
This is an appeal by special leave against an 
D 
order p~ssed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision 
No. 1077 of 1957 dated October 9, 1961 in a suit in which a 
decree for redemption on an application under s. 12 of the U. P. 

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