LexRAM PRAKASH versus MOHAMMAD ALI KHAN (DEAD) THROUGH L.RS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
8
c
D
E
F
G
H
893
RAMPRAKASH
v.
MOHAMMAD ALI KHAN (DEAD) THROUGH L.R'S
April 4, 1973
(J. M. SHELAT, ACTING C.J.,
S. N. DWIVEDI AND
Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.J
U. P. Zamindari AbolitiOfl and Land Reforms Act 19SO, s. 18(1}-
.Land held by an Intermediary as an Intermediary's grove 011 the date
immediately preceding the date of vesting deemed to be settled by th•
State Government with such intermediary-Eorlkr right• are extinguith.
ed-Res Judicat<>-No res judicata when issue in earlier decision w""
different.
In February 1946, H lea<:ed his share in a grove iJi Uttar Pradesh
to the appellant and sold to him the trees standing thereon. Similarly
A, a widow, leased her share and that of her minor children in the
grove and sold the standing trees to the· appellant. Subseqllllntly
the
proprietary right of some other co-sharers in the grove was sold to one
M. The appellal>t instituted a suit sometime in 1946 against M and
others for injunction and alternatively for possession over the
grove.
Sometime in 1947 M and others also instiu.ted a rival suit for caiu:ella-
tion of the aforesaid leases on the contention that under s. 246 of · the
U. P. Tenancy Ac:t the executiOID of a lease by some of the cosharers
•only, was invalid. The trial coort dismissed the appellanfs suit
and
>decreed M's suit. The lower appellate court granted a decree in fuvour
of the appellant for ·joint possession over the share of H and A in the
grove land. It was held that the lea•e executed by A ao guardian of
the minors was invalid.
M filed two appeals in the Allahabad High
Court. Duritog the peodency of the appeals M died and his legal re-
presentatives were brought on record. The appeal filed by M ·in his
own suit was dismissed by a Single Judge of the
High Court. The
appeal filed by M in .the appellant's suit was heard by another single
Judge, and was allowed with respect to the lease of grove land and dis·
missed as regards the sale of the trees, It was held that ofter the
commencement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
the appellant had no subsisting interest in the land. The appellant was
granted special leave to appeal to this Court.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (i) As the grove in dispute was an intermediary's grove M
and others who were intermediaries on the relevant date
becJame
its
bhumidars. 1be lessee of an intermediary's grove land is· not an inter-
mediary because he does not fall within the cletinitiOID of the
word
·'.interme~iary', _No oth~r provision of the Act gives him any kind of
mterest ID the rntermedrary's grove land. 1be appellant got no right in
:the grove land in dispute.
[895EJ
f!ana Sheo Ambar Singh v, Allal!Gbad Bank Ltd, Allahabad, {1962]
2 S.C.R. 441 and lamshed lahan Begam and others v. Lakhan Lal and
others, [1970] 2 S.C.R, 566, relied on.
(ii) Tiie dismissat of M's other appeal by the High Coun coo1d not
operate as rer judicata in the present appeal because the questions
at
issue in the two appeals were different. [8950]
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S.C.R.
C!v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1860 of
1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
Augmt 8, 1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal
]\;~_ ::350 of 1953.
IC. P. Gupta, for the appellant.
J.P. Gopal and Sobhag Mal Jain, for respondents Nos. 1 to 7.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dw1vEDI, J.-In this appeal the bone of contention is a certain
zamindari grove. The grove belonged to a number of co-sharers.
But in a partition it fell to the share of one Sakhawat Ali and one
Hafiz Ali. On Femruary 16, 1946 Hafiz Ali executed a composite
document of lease and sale in favour of the appellant, Ram
Praknsh.
He let out his share in the grove land and sold his
share in the standing trees to Ram Prakash. On the same day
another similar document was executed in favour of the appellant
by Smt.
Abbj'.lsi,
widow of Sakhawat Ali.
She executed the
document for self and as guardian of her minor son,s and daughters.
The document was in respect of her share and her childrens share.
Subsequent to the execution of those documents the proprietary
right of some other co-sharers (presuma~y some successors of
Sakhawat Ali) in the grove land was sold to one Mohammad Ali.
The ~ppellant instiluted a suit some time in 1946 against Moham-
mad Ali and others for injunc<tion and alternatively for possession
over the grove.
SomeExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.