RAM ADHAR SINGH versus RAMROOP SINGH & ORS.

Citation: [1968] 2 S.C.R. 95 · Decided: 26-10-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HIDAYATULLAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 6 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
RAM ADHAR SINGH 
v. 
RAMROOP SINGH & ORS. 
October 26, 1967 
(M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. BHARGAVA AND C. A. VAIDIALINGAM, JJ.] 
Uttar Prcdes!z Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.P. Act 5 of 
1954), s. 5 as amended by U.P. Act 21 of 1966-Suits and proceedings 
in respect of rights or interest in land pending before authorities or courts 
to abate in llreas deck1red to be under consolidation operations-A1ne1td-
ed ,\·ect!on nol specificaliy 111entionlng .<htits for possession-Appeal in 
suit for posses.\·ion under s. 209 U.P. Za111indllri and [,and Refor1ns Act. 
ahnte.\· under afore.raid s. 5-An1end111ent whether ultra vires 
the ·srate 
ahates under afori:sai'd s. 5-A 1nendn1ent lVhether ultra v!:cs. the State 
Legislature iis af}ecti11g juri.\·diction of Supre1i1e Co11rt. 
A suit··for recovery of possession of land under s. 209 of the U.P. 
Zamindari Aboi:tion and Land Reforms Act, 1950 was filed against the 
appellant. It was decreed by the tria1 court and the deci:ec was affirmed 
hy the first appellate court as well as by the High Court in second app,.,.al. 
Special leave to appeal .to this Court was granted to the appellant under 
Art. 
136 of the Constitution. 
1-hcreaftcr the State Government issued 
a notification under s. 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 
bringin~ the area in wh.ch th~ suit lands were situate, under consolida-
tion operations. 
The appellant filed an application praying for an order 
that in view of s. 5 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act as amended by 
Act 2 l of 1966 the appeal stood abated. 
On behalf of !he respondent it 
1:J.s ho\vevcr urged : (i) that suit""i for recovery of possession of lands 
Liid nc.:t come within the purview of s. 5 as amended and hence no ques-
tion of abatement arose; (ii) that if the amended section. applied to the 
present proc~edings the legislation being one· by the State Legislature, 
Was 11/tra vires inasm~ch as it took away the jurisdiction of the Supreme 
Court to deal with the appeal. 
HELD : ( i) Suits for possession as such. have not been expressly 
referred. to in the new s. 5; bul the expression 'every suit and proceeding 
in/respect of declaration of rights or inter-zst in any land .... ' is compre-
hensive enough to take in suits for possession of land, because, before 
a claim for possession is accepted, the c;ourt will have, necessarily, 
to 
adjudicate upon the right or interest of the plaintiff, in respect of the 
disputed. property, taking into account the claim of the opposite party. 
The various provisions contained in the Act alsv clearly indic•ate that 
disputes of the nature which existed between the parties in the -present 
litigation. are now well within the jurisdiction of the authoritit:s consti-
tuted under the Act, to adjudicate upon. 
[IOOE-G] 
The suit filed by the respondent was therefore covered by s. 5 of the 
~onsolidation of Holdin~s Act. 
(ii) :Section 5 docs not affec~ the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court 
and is not ultra vires. 
What the St<:te Le:~islature has done is onlv to 
make provision in respect of n1atters v.ithin its jurisdiction and declare 
that a suit, instituted. in a court. within its area has abated. The position, 
ulti1nately is that this Court takes note· of a sub~equent event, viz ... the 
passing of .the Amending Act, and the ·amendment of s. 5 thereby 
h~· 
the State Legislature, and on that basis it 
ho1ds~that the, suit, out of 
which these proceedings arise, stands a:bate4. [102D~.1.'] 
96 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1968) 2 S.C.R. 
CIVIL APPELi.ATE h 1RISDICTION: Civil Mic~ellaneous Petition 
A. 
No. 2631 of I 967 (Application for abatement of Appeal). 
Civil Appeal Ko. 691 of 1966. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
April 20. 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal 
No. 1602 of 1963. 
B 
E. C. Agra1ra/a and P. C. · Agra1ra/a, 
for 
the 
petitioner/ 
appellant. 
S. V. G11prc and B. Datta, for respondent No. I. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Vaidialingam, J. 
In Civil Appeal No. 691 of 1966, the ap 
pellant, by special leave, granted by this Court, challenge> the 
judgment and decree, of the Allahabad High Court, dated Aprii 
20, 1965, in Second Appeal No. 1602 of 1963. In Civil Miscel· 
laneous Petition No. 2631 of 1967, the appellant has prayed this 
Court, to pass an order that Civil Appeal No. 691 of 1966 has 
abated, in view of the amended s. 5, of the Uttar Pradesh Con-
solidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (U.

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