NARENDER SINGH versus JAI BHAGWAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 828 · Decided: 09-12-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.M. DHARMADHIKARI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NARENDER SINGH 
v. 
Jf\I BHAGWAN AND ORS. 
DECEMBER 9, 2004 
B 
[D.M. DHARMADHIKARI AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Specific Relief Act; 1963 : 
Agreement of sale of lands executed by tenure holder-Lands included 
C in consolidation proceedings and exclusively recorded in the name of tenure-
holder-Suit for specific.. performance-Plea by defendant-tenure-holder of 
joint ownership a/ongwith his major sons-Held, plea barred by virtue of 
s.49 ofU.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act-Besides, there being no equity· 
in favour of defendant, decree for specific performance passed by first 
D appellate court and affirmed by High Court, upheld-UP. Consolidation 
of Holdings Act, 1953-S. 49. 
E 
F 
Appellants' father executed an agreement of sale of certain lands 
which were included in consolidation proceedings and were exclusively 
recorded in his name. In the suit filed by the plaintiff for specific 
performance against appellants' father, the defendant pleaded that he 
alone was not competent to enter into the agreement of sale of the lands 
in which his sons also had shares. The trial court directed refund of the 
earnest money. The first appellate court granted the decree of specific 
performance, and the High Court affirmed the decree. The defendant's 
plea of joint ownership along with his sons was held to be barred in civil 
court by virtue of s.49 of the U.P. Consolidation oflfoldings Act, 1953. 
In the appeal filed by the sons of the defendant as his legal repre-
sentatives, it was contended for the appellants that the entry of the lands 
in revenue records in the name of the deceased defendant was in rep-
G resentative capacity for the joint family and bar of s.49 of the State Act 
was not attracted. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
H 
HELD : 1. Section 49 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 
828 
NARENDER SINGH v. JAI BHAGW AN 
829 
1953 bars jurisdiction of civil court to adjudicate upon dispute of rights A 
and title relating to lands included in consolidation proceedings, as this 
jurisdiction has been conferred exclusively on the authorities under the 
State Act. [831-E] 
2. The lands being exclusively recorded in the name of the father, B 
the sons who claim joint ownership in the lands could not ought to have 
approached the authorities under the State Act for getting them jointly 
recorded in the revenue papers. This having not been done, the High 
Court was right in invoking the bar against such plea in the suit in 
accordance with Section 49 of the State Act. Whether the father was 
Karta and Manager of the family and as such could be recorded in 
C 
representative capacity for all co-owners in the family was also a ques-
tion of title which fell within exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities 
under the State Act. [832-C, D, H] 
Sita Ram v. Chhota Bhondey, [1991) Suppl. 1 SCC 556, relied on. 
Kai/ash Rai v. Jai Ram, [1973] 1 SCC 527; Gorakh Nath Dube v. Har 
Narain Singh, [1973] 2 SCC 535; Suba Singh v. Mahendra Singh, [1974] 
1 SCC 418 and Du/aria Devi v. Janardan Singh, [1990] Supp. SCC 216, 
cited. 
D 
E 
3. The jurisdiction exercised under Specific Relief Act is both legal 
and equitable. Even after institution of the suit, no attempt was made 
by the sons to approach the authorities under the State Act for getting 
their names recoded on the lands as joint owners. Apart from the bar 
u9der Section 49 of the State Act, there is no equity in favour of 
defendant and his legal representatives. (833-B, D] 
F 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 6360 of 
1999. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 24.3.99 of the Allahabad High 
Court in S.A. No. 469 of 1999. 
M.N. Rao, D.K. Garg and Manzoor Ali Khan for the Appellants. 
Saket Singh, Uma Datta, Bankey Bihari Sharma and Tarun Sharma for 
G 
the Respondents. 
H 
830 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2004] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DHARMADHIKARI, J. : Aggrieved by the grant of decree of spe-
cific relief of execution of Contract of Sale of ·.'1e agricultural lands in suit 
by the first appellate court which has been confirmed by the High Court of 
B Allahabad in Second Appeal, the legal representatives of the deceased 
defendant have preferred this appeal. 
The suit for Specific Relief of agreement of sale was resisted by the 
original defendant mainly on the ground that he alone was not competent 
to enter into agreement of sale of the entire land in which his sons (now on 
C record as legal representatives) had shares. 

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