RAM JIVAN versus SMT. PHOOLA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 3 S.C.R. 262 · Decided: 30-01-1976 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.S. SARKARIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
262 
RAM JIVAN 
v. 
SMT. PHOOLA (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. 
January 30, 1976 
[R. S. SARKARIA, S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI AND P. N. SHINGHAL, JJ.J 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Refornis Act, 1950-Sections 172 and 
174-Scope of. 
Practice-Whether decision of a Division Bench in an ap{Jt'al binding on 
another Division Bench hearing a writ petition. 
Under s. 172 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Ac1:, i950, 
when a bhu1nidar who has, after the date of vesting, inherited an interest in any 
holding, dies, the holding or the part thereof shall devolve upon the nearest 
surviving heir (such heir being ascertained in accordance \vith the provi~ions of 
s. 171). Section 174 provides that \Vhen a bhumidar who is a woman dies, her 
interest in the holding shall devolve in accordance with the order of succession 
given in the section. 
The appellant was the grandson (son's son) of one brother while respond· 
ent No. l \Vas the only daughter of another brother. 
On the death of 
the 
respondent's 
father, 
her 
mother 
continued 
in 
possession 
of 
the 
lands as heir of her husband under the provisions of the Oudh Land Act, 1886. 
U.P. Act 4 of 1921 which replaced the 1886 Act, conferred the status of a 
statutory tenant upon a person in possession of lands on the date of the amend· 
ment. Section 29 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, which was a c·onsolidating 
Act, conferred the status of a hereditary tenant on any person who was a tenant 
of the land at the commencement of the Act and so the mother acquired the 
status of a hereditary tenant. The 1939 Act was replaced by the U.P. Zan1in-
dari Abolition & Land Reforms Act. 1950 under which she became :i bhun1idar. 
The mother died in 1952. 
On the death of the respondent's' mother the appellant got his name rnutated 
in the revenue records as the nearest heir of the mother. The respondent filed 
a suit under s. 21 of the Abolition Act 1950 claiming to be the sole legal heir 
to the property. She also filed an application before the Consolidation Officer 
under the U .P. Consolidation of Holdings Act for mutation of her name in 
place of the appellant's, which was accepted. 
On appeal to this Court it was contended that it was the appellant'-) father 
who would succeed to the property in preference to the respondent and it \Vas 
contended for the respondent that \vhen the respondent's father died, the tenancy 
was heritable and so the tenancy acquired by her mother \Vas in her own 
right as self·acquired property. 
A.llowing the appeal, 
HELD: (1) Section 172A \vhich was introduced in 1954 ha" no applica-
tion to this case because the mother died two years bCfore the amendment 
came into force and the question of succession to her estate v,rould be govern· 
ed by s. 172 or s. 174 of the Abolition Act. 
[274-A] 
r .. 
(2) The statute seeks to make a clear cut distinction betv,:een a widow who 
-" 
has inherited an interest from her husband dealt with in s. 172 and fl wido\V 
.. 
who had acquired an independent interest in the holding covered by s. 174. 
[272 CJ 
Mst. Jaini & Ors. v. Ram Prasad, A.I.R. 1952 AIL 852, approved. 
(3)(a) Section 172 uses the word 'holding or the part shall devolve' to 
denote that if it was found that a widow had inherited an interest in the hold-
ing from her husband then it was the holding that devolved and not interest of 
the widow, \Vhich ceased after her death. The High Court had overlooked the 
fact that merely because the mother having initially inherited possession or 
, 
 
I 
i 
j 
RAM JIVAN v. SMT. PHOOLA (Fazal Ali, J.) 
2,63 
occupation of the holding from her husband acqu!red other types of inter:est 
by operation of law that could not destroy the 0~1g1n or the source of her tttle 
which was inheritance from her husband. Nor did the conferme_nt of the status 
of a statutory tenant under the various laWs passed_ by the legislature amount 
to an acquisition of a self-acquired interest by the widow. [272B, D] 
(b) The \vords "inherited an interest" occurring in s. 172 are. not de~ed 
in the statute and, therefore, they must be deemed to be of the widest possible 
amplitude. [272FJ 
(4) Section 174 applies only to such cases where the widow did not inherit 
an interest from her husband but had an independent interest in the holding 
which she possessed as her self-acquired property. 
Under s. 174 it is the inter-
est in any holding which devolves and not the holding. The language used 
in Ss. 172 and 174 of the

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