RAM PRASAD (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1994] 3 S.C.R. 231 · Decided: 30-03-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, N. VENKATACHALA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
I 
\ 
RAM PRASAD (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
v. 
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. 
MARCH 30, 1994 
[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] 
U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939-S.33(2) provis6-{f.P. Zamindari Abolition 
and Land Reforms Act, 1951-Respondent claiming cotcnancy with widow 
A 
B 
of last male holder of tenancy right ....... Widow not ratifying join tenancy after 
becoming absolute owner-held, respondent did not acquire any rights as joint C 
.. ;-
tenant. 
J 
U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939-Ss.59, 33(2)-U.P. Consolidation of Holdings 
Act, 1953-Suit for declaration as co-owner under S. 33(2) decreed by com-
promise with widow without reversioners of last male holder being made 
parties-Held, decree collusive, fraudulent and does not bind rever-
D 
sioners-Liable to be set aside in subsequent declaratory suit-Code of Civil 
Procedure, S. 9. 
U.P. Agricultural Tenants A.cquisition of Privileges Act, 1949-S.6, 
S.7(J)(c)-U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939-S.59-Whether widow of last male E 
holder of tenancy rights could induct joint tenant-Held, the Privileges Act, a 
temporary measure, gives only a limited right to remain in possession-Does 
not get enlarged into an absolute right as owner to encumber the estate 
B, the last male holder of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural 
land, died interstate leaving behind his widow J. Respondent JS moved an F 
application under S. 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 for a declaration 
that he was co-tenant. This suit, to which the reversioners of B were not 
parties, was decreed by a compromise between J and JS. 
After J's death, R the predecessor in interest of the appellants and 
the lineal descendant of B filed a suit to declare the decree under S.59 of G 
the Tenancy Act as collusive and fraudulent. The authorities under the 
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act held that the decree was fraudulent. 
JS moved the High Court by way of a revision petition which was allowed. 
The High Court held that the decree under S. 59 had become final and 
that J as an absolute mmer after the coming into force of the U.P. H 
231 
232 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994] 3 S.C.R. 
A Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act from July 1,1952 could 
·alienate that right. The legal representatives of R appealed to this Court. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : I. JS does not acquire any right as a joint tenant. J had 
B acquired, on and from July 1, 1952, absolute right, title and interest in the 
holding as a full owner. However, J did not ratify the joint tenancy either 
on or after she became absolute owner under the Abolition Act. 
[pp 237F; 238-E-F; 239-A-B] 
Ramji Dixit &Anr. v. Bhrigunath & Ors. [1966) 2 SCR 767, referred to. 
c 
2.1. The declaration given in the Civil Suit and by the tribunals that 
the decree obtained was fraudulent and collusive is perfectly legal. If a 
person inducted into possession by a tenant having a limited interest or 
estate wished to file a suit for declaration of his right as a joint tenant 
under S.59, it is but necessary that the reversioner should be made a party 
D respondent. [235-F-G-H; 236-A-E) 
E 
F 
G 
2.2. Any encumbrance created by J burdening the estate without 
impleading the appellants does not bind them as reversioner. [236-A] 
Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh & Ors., [1968) 2 SCR 95, referred 
to. 
3. The limited right of J under the Privileges Act to remain in 
possession till the making of the Abolition Act does not get enlarged into 
an absolute right as owner to alienate or encumber the estate. [238-B-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2802 of 
1980. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.80 of the Allahabad High 
Court in W.P. No. 3876 of 1973. 
G.L. Saoghi, E.C. Agrawala, A.V. Palli and Atul Sharma for the 
Appellants. 
Ms. Sandhya Goswamy for the Respondents. 
H 
The followin~ order of the Court was delivered : 
·' 
). 
'· 
·• 
RAM PRASAD v. ASSTT. DIRECTOROFCONSOL!DA110N 
233 
The appellants are the legal representatives of Ram Prasad· and A 
sueeessors to one Umrao Singh, brother of Bahadur Singh. Bahadur Singh 
and Umrao Singh were the sons of one Ganga Ram, residents of village 
Salarpur, Pargana Mooth, Tehsil Hapur, Dist. Meerut, U.P. The dispute 
relates to Khata No. 66 of that village. Bahadur Singh died intestate leaving 
behind his widow, Smt. Jivani, Bahadur Singh was in possession of the B 
Khata No. 66 as a tenant under Chelan Prakash and Jiwan Lal, brothers, 
land holders at that relevant time. It is the appel

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