NIRSHI DHOBIN & ORS. versus DR. SUDHIR KUMAR MUKHERJI AND ORS.

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 469 · Decided: 30-07-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. BACHAWAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-· 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
469 
NIRSIIl DHOBIN & ORS. 
v. 
DR. SUDHIR KUMAR MUKHERJI AND ORS. 
July 30 1968 
[R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.] 
Stare deeisis-Long !inf; of judg1nents of courts taking a certain vie)V 
-.:....Different view, even if correct, should not be taken where titles and 
transactions based on the settled view would be affected. 
Bihar Tenancy Act and Transfer of Property Act s. 
117-Lease of 
agriculture/ land including homestead-Sub-lease of homestead by original 
Jessee whether an agricultural lease governed by the Tenancy Act or a 
Jlon-agricultural lease governed by the Transfer of Propert,y Act. 
C was the lessee of a plot which consisted of agricultural land as well 
as a homestead. 
The homestead was later leased to the appellants. The 
respondents purchased the rights of C and l>rought a suit against the 
appellants for possession of the homestead. The contention of the appel-
lants in defence was that the suit had not been brought according to the 
provisions of the Bihar Tenancy Act and hence was not maintainable. 
The contention of the respondents was that the lease of the homestead 
\~.'as not an agricultural lease within the meaning of s. 117 of the Transfer 
of Property Act and was invalid under the provisions of the latter Act. 
The trial court decreed the suit. 
The fitst appellate court however dis-
missed it. In doing so it relied on earlier rulings of the Patn.a and Calcutta 
High Courts which had held the field for over 55 yea'rs, to the effect that 
if the main lease is a lease for agricultural purposes all sub-leases of por-
tions of that leasehold should also be considered as agricultural leases des-
pite the fact that a particular lease may be that of a homestead only. The 
High Court in further appeal departed from the view taken in the earlier 
cases and decided against the appellants, who came to this Court. 
The 
main question for consideration was whether the High Court was justified 
in departing from the settled view. 
HELD : The rule laid down in. the earlief decisions was never departed 
from in the past. 
The Tenancy Act was amended a number of times 
but yet the legislature did not think it necessary to alter or modify the 
said ru]e. In law finality is of the utmost importance. Unless so required 
in public interest questions of law firmly settled by a long course of 
flecisions should not ordinarily be disturbed and it is all the more so in 
the case of an interpretation affecting property rights. [471 C-E] 
The rule that where the terms of a statute or ordinance are clear then 
even a long and uniform course of judicial interpretation of it may be 
overruled. if it is contrary to the clear meaning of the enactment 
is 
inapplicabl·~ to decisions on the basis of which titles and 
transactions 
must .have been founded [477 DJ 
H 
Case law referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE' JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 955 of 
1965. 
470 
SUPREME COL:RT REPORTS 
[1969] J S.C.R. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated 
March 17, 1961 of the Patna High Court in Appeal from Appel-
late Decree No. 897 of 1956. 
U. P. Singh, for the appellants. 
K. K. Sinha for respondent No. I. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. In this case a Full Bench of the P<ttna High Court 
differing from the view taken in a series of earlier decisions of 
that High Court as well as the High Court of Calcutta held that 
the provisions of 13ihar Tenancy Act (to be briefly referred to 
hereinafter as the Act) do not apply to a lease of a homestead 
though that homestead was a part of an earlier lease which was 
admittedly an agricultural lease and to which the provisions of 
the Act applied. 
The appellant challenges the correctness of that 
decision. 
The relevant facts as found by the fact finding courts are :-
One Chakrapani Singh was the lessee of a plot which consisted 
of agricultural lands as well as a homestead. 
The homestead was 
later separately leased to defendants I 
and 
2 
(appellants). 
Thereafkr the plaintiffs purchased the rights of the main Jessee 
and sued the appellants for possession of the homestead. 
The 
appellants resisted the suit mainly on the ground that it had not 
been brought in accordance with the provisions of the Act and 
hence not maintainable. 
The contention of the plaintiffs is that 
the lease is invalid as it did not conform to the provisions of s. 117 
of the Transfer of Property Act and therefore they arc entitled 
to evict t

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