LexPUSHPAPRIYADEVI AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 578 PUSHPAPRIYADEVI AND ORS. v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. April 4, 1978 (R. S. SARKARIA AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.] Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, Act I of 1950, Sections 3 and 6-Scope of-Whether the Forest Contract Er. P. 19 void-Whether there is a novation of contract by virtue of the letter Ex. P. 17 and th-erefore whether there is estoppel by con ... duct in claiming the refund. Before the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals Alienated) Act, 1950, came into force on 31st March, 1951, the plaintiff 4 predecessor of the appellant and who is a brother of the second respondent and the proprietor of Ahiri estate, took a forest contract Ex. P. 19 on 15th March, 1951 for cutting the standing trees in the forest known as Huchbodi Nendwadi coupe for a sum of Rs. 50,000/-. The contract provided that a sum of Rs. 15,000 was to be paid immediately on the date of the execution of the con· tract and the balance to be paid within six months. After the dismissal, on 2nd, May, 1952 of the writ petition filed by the second respondent, challenging the validity of the Act, the departments of the Government refused permission to the original plaintiff to remove the trees cut. The plaintiff made represen- tation to the State Government and the State Government by its letter dated 12th March, 1953 Ex. P.-17, permitted the plaintiff to remove the trees on con- dition that be deposited Rs. 35,000 /-. Accordingly the plaintiff paid Rs. 35,000/- on 24th March 1953 and removed the timber. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed a suit for the return of the said sum of Rs. 35,000/- on the ground that he had already paid Rs. 35,000/- to his brother on 30th September, 1951, with interest of Rs. 7,000/- in all Rs. 42,000/- contending that as the Supreme Court had granted a stay of the operation of the Act, the property did not vest in the State on 31st March 1951 but only on 2nd May, 1952, when the Supreme Court dismissed the writ petition and therefore the contract was binding on the defendant's estate, making his title perfect on the date of the contract before 31st March, 1951 when the estate vested in the State. The trial Court decreed the suit on 21st November 1959 holding that the transaction was entered into by the second respondent in the ordinary course of management and that the transaction was not sham or a bogus one and that the transfer of sale under the contract of the standing timber was sale of movable property and, therefore. the transaction did not ·contravene the provisions of s. 6 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950. The High Court of Bombay, (Nagpur Bench) allowed the appeal by the State, set aside the decree passed by the trial Court and dismissed the suit of the original plaintiff. Dismissing the appeal by Certificate, the Court HELD : 1. While under Section 3 of the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of / Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 the interest of the proprietor vests in the State Government from the date specified in the Notification i.e. 31st March, 1951 Section 6 provides that the transfer of any right which is liable to vest in the State under this Act made by the proprietor at any time after 16th March, 1950 shall be void from the date of vesting. The result of the operation of Section 6 would be that the contract dated 15th March, 1951 which is a transfer of a right of property which is liable to vest in the State having been made by the proprietor after 16th March, 1950, shall become void from the date of vesting i.e. 31st March, 1951. [581 G-H, 582 A] 2. (a) The several clauses of the contract Ex. P. 19 clearly show that the contract was to commence on 15th March, 1951 and will be in force till 14th March, 1953 during which period the contractor agreed to file monthly • .. • \ •i ,., . , ~ • PUSHPAPRIYADEVI v. MAHARASHTRA STATE (Kailasam, !.) 579 accounts of falling, logging and extraction by him. As per Cl. 5, the contrac- tor will not remove the· forest produce till logs are checked and passed by the Estate Forest Officer. The second instalment of Rs. 35,000/- is to be paid on 15th September, 1951. What was contracted for was the sale of forest produce, which is proprietary right vested in the proprietor in the property which accor
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.