MOOLCHAND versus KEDAR (DECEASED) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 1 S.C.R. 448 · Decided: 28-01-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, AJAY PRAKASH MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MOOLCHAND 
v. 
KEDAR (DECEASED) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
JANL'ARY 28, 2CCO 
B 
[M. JAGA~NADHA RAO AND A.P. MISRA, JJ.j 
Land Laws: 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 195(}-Sections 171, 
C 172(2)(a)(i), 17212)(aJ(ii), 174, 175- --Wife of the appellant inheriting 2/5th 
share each in two khatas in question from her father and was a co-bhumidar 
along with other co- tenure-holders-Appellant claiming his right as tenure 
holder in place of his wife after her death-Entitlement of-Held, the wife of 
the appellant inherited the property from her father under the personal law as 
D limited estate and thus after her death, the interest in the property in question 
would pass to the co-tenure holders by survivorship and not devolve upon the 
appellant-Appellant's wife having died prior to the coming into force of the 
Hindu Succession Act, Section 14 of the said Act is not applicable and 
ownership of property is thus governed by personal law wherein the property 
E inherited by any female from a male is held as limited estate and not absolute 
estate-Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 14. 
Law of Inheritance-Variation in-Female Bhumidar having absolute 
right to transfer under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 
F having only a limited right under the personal law for the purposes of 
inheritance-Though paradoxical, this is what legislature intends-Law of 
inheritance varies for different properties under different statutes for the same 
person. 
Appellant's wife inherited the property in question from her father 
G after his death in 1944. She had 2J5th share each in the two khatas in 
question along with other recorded co-tenure holders, the respondents 
herein. When the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 
came into force, she became co-bhumidar along with the aforesaid other 
co-tenure-Holders. However, she died in 1953 whereafter the appellant got 
H his name mutated. 
448 
_j 
MOOL CHAND v. K.EDAR (DECEASED) BY LRS. 
449 
During the consolidatio11 proceedings the appellant claimed his right A 
as tenure holder in place of his wife to the extent of 2/5th share in the said 
two khatas. The respondents opposed the appellant's claim and instead 
claimed their right as co-sharers. The Consolidation Ofticer accepted the 
claim of the appellant and dismissed the objection of the contesting 
respondents. Being aggrieved, the respondents filed an appeal before the 
Assistant Settlement Officer, Consolidation who held that the respondents 
being co-tenants were entitled to inherit the share of the wife of the 
appellant under Section 175 of LP. Zamindari Abolition and Land 
Reforms Act, 1950. In revision preferred by the appellant the, Depnty 
Director, Consolidation held that the wife of the appellant became full 
owner of the properties and hence after her death, the appellant inherited 
B 
c 
the property. The said order was challenged by the respondents before the 
High Court by way of a writ petition which was dismissed but their special 
lea\'e petition was allowed whereby the case W"dS remanded back to the 
Deputy Director, Consolidation. After remand, the Revision Authority, 
applying Section 175 of the Act, held that respondents being co-tenure· D 
holders were entitled to inherit the share of the wife of the appellant with 
respect to the two khatas in question. Thereafter the appellant filed a writ 
petition before the High Court which dismissed the said petition thereby 
confirming the finding of the Revisionary Authority. Hence the present 
appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the appellant's wife 
bad inherited the property in question from her father and became ah· 
solute owner and not limited owner for life. Thus on her death, Section 
172(a)(ii) would apply and hence devolution would be governed by Section 
E 
174, under which the property would devolve on the appellant being the 
F 
husband of the deceased. 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. Since the appellant's wife held the land inherited from 
her father, under the personal law as limited estate, after her death such G 
bhumidhari land would be governed by clause (i) of Section 172(2)(a) ofU.P. 
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Thus for inheritance, 
Section 171 would apply under which husband is not a heir. In view o( this 
the appellant's claim cannot succeed. The Courts below rightly held that the 
property would go to the concerned respondents by survivorship by 

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