RAM AVTAR AND ORS. versus RAM DHANI AND ORS

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 45 · Decided: 26-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.P. SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

RAM AVTAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
~--
RAM DHANI AND ORS .. 
SEPTEMBER 26, 1996 
[N.P. SINGH AND FAIZAN UDDIN, JJ.] 
B 
'O 
U.P. Zamindar Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1950: 
S.18-Hindu Undivided Family-Widow given land for maintenance 
u11der a compromise in 1932--Mutatio11 effected-Widow executing a sa~ c 
deed on 6.4.1956-Sale of land challenged by other members of the family · 
011 the ground that she had a limited illterest in the lands-Meanw/(il~ · 
consolidation proceedings startetf--Co11solidatio11 Officer and Settlement Of-, 
fleer (Co11solidation) upheld widow's right to transfer the land-Deputy Direc-
tor of Consolidation in revision set aside the orders-High Court in writ 
petition held that widow had acquired absolute right under s.18 of the D 
Act-Appellants contending that s.11 and not s.18 would apply in the 
case-Held widow got the land on the basis of the compromise in 1932 and 
as such the High Court rightly held that by virtue of s.18 she became 
-
bhumidhar of the land. 
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953: 
E 
S.48 Revision-Held, howsoever wide the power under statutory revision 
may be in contrast to s.115 CPC, still while exercising the power the authority 
concemed cannot act as a court of appeal so as to reappreciate the evidence 
for recording findings 011 question off acts-Order of Deputy Director of F 
Consolidation was liable to be set aside on this ground alone. 
Ramji Dixit and Anr. v. Bhrigunath and Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 767, relied 
on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1803 of G 
1982. 
-
.. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 19.3.82 of the Allahabad High 
Court in C.M.W.P. No. 7828 of 1973. 
S.B. Sanyal, G.G. Upadhyay and R.D. Upadhyay for the Appellants. H 
45 
i 
, 
\ 
46 
\ SUPREMECOURTREPORTS (1996)SUPP. 7S.C.R. 
A 
J.P. Goyal, R.P. Goyal and K:K: Gupta for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
One Sehti, the husband· of Smt. Phoola died in a state of jointness in 
B the year 1911. The said Smt. Phoola continued to be the member of the 
joint family along with other brothers of her husband. A dispute arose in 
the family and a compromise was entered into on February 8, 1932 in "'.hich 
it was agreed that Smt. Phoola who was the widow in the family should be 
given some lands for maintenance. Her name was also mutated in revenue 
records .. 
c 
The said Phoola executed sale deeds in favour of the respondents on 
April 6, 1956 in respect of the lands in question. She died in the year 1966. 
Thereafter the appellants filed a suit for declaration that Smt. Phoola 
having only a limited interest in the said property could not have trans-
D ferred th_e same in favour of the .respondents. That suit abated in view of 
issuance cif the notification under the provisions of U.P. Consolidation of 
Holdings Act. Thereafter, the same question as to whether the transfer 
could have been made or not by Smt. Phoola in favour of the respondents 
was raised before the Consolidation Officer. The Consolidation Officer 
E upheld the right of Smt. Phoola to transfer the lands in question. The 
appeal filed on behalf of the appellants before the Settlement Officer 
(Consolidation) was. also dismissed with the same finding. However, on 
revision application being filed on behalf of the appellants; the Deputy 
Director, consolidation set aside the orders passed by the Consolidation 
F 
Officer and the Settlement Officer (Consolidation). Thereafter, a writ 
petition was filed on behalf of the respondents before the High Court. A 
learned Judge of the High Court after taking into consideration the 
provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 
(hereinafter to be referred to as the Land Reforms Act) and the provisions 
of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafte~ to be referred to as the Succes-
G sion Act) came to the conclusion that even before coming into force of the 
provisions of the Succession Act Smt. Phoola had acquired absolute right 
under Section 18 of the Land Reforms Act on the basis of which she could 
have conveyed valid title to the respondents. The High Court also 
proceeded to consider the effect of the provisions of the Succession Act in • 
H connection with the arguments raised before the High Court that the lands 
-.., 
RAM AVfAR v. RAM DHANI 
47 
which had been given to Smt. Phoola for maintenance, were in lieu of a A 
pre-existing right. 
Learned counsel appearing for the appellants took the stand that in 
the present case

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