PRABHU versus RAMDEV & ORS.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 676 · Decided: 28-02-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 7 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

PRABHU 
v. 
RAMDEV & ORS. 
February 28, 1966 
A 
[P. B. GAJE:-;DRAGADKAR, c. J., K. N. WA~CHOO, M. J-IIDAYATULLAll, 
B 
1. C. SHAH ASD S. M. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Transfer of Property Act (4 of 1882), s. 16(e)-Tenants inducted 
by mortgagee-When ca11 continue in possession after tenninttion of 
nrortgage. 
The appellant's father created a usufructuary mortgage of the 
land 
m dispute and the mortgagee admitted the respondents as tenants. During 
the continuance of the mortgage and while the respondents were in po!· 
session as tenants, the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955, came into ~orce. 
lbe mortgage was eventually redeemed but the respondents con!lnued 
in possession. 
The appellant therefore sued for possession of the land 
before the revenue authorities and the Board of Revenue in appeal, held 
that by virtue of the provisions of s. 15 of the Act, the possessioo of 
the respondents was unassailable, that they could be ejected, in view of 
s. 161, only in accordance with the provisions of the Act, but that, none 
of the iirounds available to the appellant had been proved. 
The High 
C.ourt d1Smissed the writ petition of the appellant challenging the Board's 
decision. 
In appeal to this Court, on the questi\'.ln whether the respondents could 
be ejected on the ground that the mortgage had been redeemed, 
c 
D 
HFLD: A; a general rule under s. 76(e) of the Transfer of Property 
E 
Act, a mortgagee cannot create an interest in the mortgaged property 
which will enure beyond the termination of his interest as mortgagee. 
But the rights of the tenants inducted by the mortgagee may be improved 
by virtue of statutory provisions which may meanwhile come into ope-
ration, and that was pr·,cisely what had happened in the present case. 
During the continuance of the mortgage, s. 15 of Rajasthan Tenancy 
Act came into operation and 1bat made the respondents Khatedars who 
are entitled to claim the benefit of s. 161 of that Act. 
[680 A-DJ 
F 
Mahabir Gope v. llarbans Narain Singh, 
[1952) S.C.R. 775, ex-
plained. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 323 of 1963. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order daled 
October 20. 1961 of the Rajasthan High Court in D. B. Civil Writ 
G 
No.41 ofl959. 
B. C. Misra and M. V. Goswami, for the appellant. 
S. C. Agarwal, for respondent No. I. 
R. N. Sachthcy. for respondents Nos. 4 and 5. 
The judgment of the Court was delivered by 
H 
Gajendragadkar, C. J. The appellant Prabhu is the owner of 
agricultural land hcarin!! Khasra Nos. 224, 215, 244, 299, 320, 506, 
' • 
··-
•• 
r
• 
I 
PRABHU v. RAMDEV (Gajendragadkar, C.l.) 
677 
A 
617 and 687 situated in village Nilakpur, Tehsil Behror, District 
Alwar, in the State of Rajasthan. The appellant's father Jora had 
executed a usufructuary mortgage of the said land in about 1936 for 
a period of twenty years in favour of one Ganga Din. After the 
expiry of the period prescribed by the said mortgage, the appellant 
obtained a decree for redemption on July 16, 1956. This decree 
B 
declared that the mortgage and all encumbrances created by the 
mortgagee or any person claiming under him were extinguished 
and directed the mortgagee to deliver possession of the mortgaged 
property to the appellant. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
It appears that during the continuance of the mortgage, the 
mortgagee Ganga Din had let out the aforesaid land to respondents 
I to 3 Ramdev, Yadram and Nathu respectively. 
Meanwhile, on October 15, 1955 the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 
(No. 3 of 1955) (hereinafter called 'the Act') had come into force. 
On July 28, 1956, the appellant instituted the present suit for pos-
session of the land in question against the three respondents. This 
suit was tried by the Sub-Divisional Officer, Behror. In this suit 
the appellant had alleged that after the redemption decree had 
been passed in favour of the appellant, the respondents had in fact 
delivered possession of the property to the appellant, but a few days 
thereafter they had trespassed into the property and obtained its 
possession wrongfully. This plea was resisted by the respondents 
on the ground that they had not surrendered possession of the 
property to the appellant as alleged by him and that under the rele-
vant provisions of the Act they were entitled to remain in possession 
of this property. On these pleadings the learned Sub-Divisional 
Officer framed two issues. They were: 
No. I. Whether the respondents are trespassers in 
respect. of foe fields and are

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