RAJAMMAL AND ANR. versus MOOKAN @ PERIA PERUMAL THEVAL & ORS.

Citation: [1982] 1 S.C.R. 174 · Decided: 06-08-1981 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

174 
A 
RAJAMMAL AND ANR. 
v. 
MOOKAN@ PERIA PERUMAL THEVAL & ORS. 
August 6, 1981 
B 
[0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, A.P. SEN AND BAHARUL !SLAM, JJ.] 
Madras Bhoodan Yagna Act (15 of 1958) sections 11, 16, 17, 20 and 23--
41!' 
Donation of land to Bhoodan Board prior to commencement of Act-Not invalid for 
want of registration. 
C 
Madras Bhoodan (Amendment) Yagna Act 1964, section 11 and 24-Meaning 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
and scope of. 
The suit land belonged to one Naidu who donated it to Bhoodan Yagna in 
1953 through unregistered deeds. 
Later the Madras Bhoodan Yagna Act 1958 
came into force and this Act of 1958 was further amended by Bhoodan (Amend· 
ment) Act 1964. The said land was allotted to the respondents under the Act 
who claimed to have been in possession of the land since before the donation. 
Naidu sold the suit lands to the appellants by a registered sale deed. The 
appellants filed the suit for declaration of their title to, and possession 
of, the said land and pleaded that (i) as the donation of the land by 
Naidu was ~not by any registered deed, no title could be passed to the 
Bhoodan Board and subsequently to the respondents and (ii) Naidu validly 
transferred title of the lands to them. The respondents pleaded that (i) the land 
vested in the Bhoodan Board under the Bhoodan Act and (ii) Naidu had no 
saleable interest thereto which he could transfer to the appellants by the deed of 
sale. The trial court decreed the appellant's suit which was upheld by the first 
appellate court. The respondents preferred second appeal before the High Court 
which reversed the decree of the courts below and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. 
On appeal, it was argued by the appellants that the donation was invalid for 
want of registered deed and the provisions of the Bhoodan (Amendment) Act do 
not have retrospective effect. 
Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : 1. 
The object of the Bhoodan Yagna Act is "to facilitate 
the donation of lands for the 
Bhoodan Yagna initiated by Shri Acharya 
Vinoba Bhave and the transfer and settlement of such land for the benefit of 
poor landless persons or for community purposes and to provide in Gramdan 
villages for the vesting of lands in, and the management of those lands by the 
Sarvodaya Panchayat in the State of Madras." [176 H, 177 A-BJ 
2. Section 11 clearly shows that intention of the Legislature was to bring 
in to the purview of the Bhoodan Act lands donated by any person before the 
commencement of the Bhoodan Act. The Jaw ingrained in section 11 is merely 
declaratory in express terms of the already existing law under the Bhoodan Act of 
1958. (177 E-F, 182 BJ 
• 
-
, 
-
• 
-
RAJAMMAL v. MOOKAN (Baharul Islam, J.) 
175 
3. Clause (b) of section 11 of the Bhoodan (Amendment) Act puts a bar 
'on the maintenance of a suit or other proceedings in any Court for the declara-
tion of title to, or recovery or possession of, any land donated for the Bhoodan 
Yagna on the ground that the transfer (donation) was not in accordance with the 
provisions of the Transfer of Property Act or Indian Registration Act. Clause 
(c) to section 11 goes one step further and lays down that even if a decree has 
already been passed in such a suit, no court shall execute a decree in a suit 
referred to in clause (b). [181 G-H, 182 A-BJ 
4. Section 24 of the Act leaves no doubt that the provisions of the Bhoodan 
Act had retrospective effect and intended,,to include donations of land by any 
person to the Bhoodan Yagna made before the commencement of the Bhoodan 
Act, and such donations were also exempted from the relevant provisions of the 
Transfer of Property Act and the Indian Registration Act with retrospective 
effective. [180 B·C] 
CIVIL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION 
of 1970. 
Civil Appeal No. 1932 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated the 
31st December, 1969, of the Madras High Court in Second Appeal 
No. 348 of 1966, 
M. Natesan, Mrs. Janaki Ramachandran and K. Kumar for the 
Appellants. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Vepa P. Sarathy, Gopal Subramanian and Mrs. S. Gopalakrishnan, 
E 
for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Couri was delivered by 
BAHARUL ISLAM, J. This appeal by special leave is by the 
plaintiffs. 
The material facts of the case are that the suit land 
belonged to one Venkataramabhadra Naidu, a Zamindar (herein· 
after 'Naidu"), who donated it to Bhoodan Yagna on August 18, 
1953 by executing documents, Exs. B-1 and B-2, which were unregis· 
tered deeds. Later in 1958, in Madras Bhoo

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