RAMESHWAR AND ORS. versus JOT RAM & ORS.

Citation: [1976] 1 S.C.R. 847 · Decided: 18-09-1975 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.R. KRISHNA IYER · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
' 
F 
G 
H 
RAMESHWAR AND ORS. 
v. 
JOT RAM & ORS. 
September 18, 1975 
[V. R. KRISHNA IYER AND. S. MURTAZA FAZAL ALI, JJ.] 
847 
Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1~53 (Punjab 
Act X of !953), 
Section 2(2) and sub-sectwns (I) and (4) of Section 
IS-Tenant of large 
landowner deenied owner on deposit of first 
installnenJ of purchase price-
Death df landowner subse,,quent to deposit-Landowner's heirs becoming small 
landowners-Tena.nts if disentitled to purchase land. 
Section 18(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953. lays down 
that, notwithstanding to the· contrary contained in any law, usage or contract .. 
a tenant of a land owner other thCNl a small land-owner shall be entitled to 
purchase from the land-owner the land so held by him in the case of a tenant 
falling within CL (i) or cl. (ii) at any time. and in the case of a tenant falling 
within Cl. (iii) within a period of onei year from the date of commencement 
of this Act. Section 18(4)(a) provided that the tenant shall be competent t<> 
pay the purchase price either in a lump sum or in six-monthly instalments not 
exceeding ten in the manner prescribed. Clause (b) provided that. on the 
purchase price or the first instalment thereof, as 
the case 
may be, being 
deposited, the tenant shall be deemed to have become the owner of the land. 
Teja, the landlord was a large land-owner under whom there were three 
tenants. Each of them a,pplied for purchase of ownership under sectio!l 18(1) 
of the Act. The Assistant Collector found them eligible, fixed the orice and 
the· instalments of payment, and they duly deposited the first instalment. A ft er 
this Teja died. Before the Financial Commissioner, the appellants contended 
that on the death of Teja, they as the heirs of Teja, became entitled to shares 
and, in this process of fragmentation, they became small landowners within 
the meaning of section 2(2) of the Act and therefore the tenants will be dis-
entitled to purchase the land. Their plea was that an appeal is a continuation 
of the original proceedin~ and, therefore. if there is a change of circumstances 
in the landlord's ownership during the pend.ency of the appeal, resulting in his 
legal representatives becoming small landowners' the tenants will be disentitled 
to purchase the land. 'rhe appellants succeeded before the Financial Commis-
sioner, but failed before the High Court. This appeal has been preferred on 
the basis of the special leave granted by this Court. 
Dismissing the appe_als. 
HELD : (i) It is absolutely plain that on the deposit of the first instalment 
of the purchase price, the tenant shall be deemed to have become the. owner 
of the land. In the present case, all these happenings had resulted in the res-
pondents becoming the owners. (849-H] 
Oi) Where rights have already vested in a party, they cannot be nullified: 
or negated by subsequent events save where there is a change in law and it 
is made applicable at any stage. 
[852-BJ 
P. Venkataswarlu v. Motor & General Traders A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 1409, 1410, 
Bhajan Lal v. State of Punjab [1971] (I) S.C.C. 34, Patterson v. State of Alabama 
(1934) 294 U.S. 600. 607 Lachmeshwar Prosed Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chau-
(1934) 294 U.S. 600, 607 Lachmeshwar Prasad Shukul v. Keshwar Lal Chaudhuri 
and Rmnji Lal v. The Stare of Punjab. I.LR. [1966] Punj. 125 referred to. 
The death of the large landowner occurred pending the appeal. The right 
of the respondents is fixed under sub-sections (I) and (4) of S-18 of the Act 
and that cannot be uprooted by supervening circumstances. A plain reading 
of section 18 yields the only conclusion that the rights of parties are determined 
on the date they come to court. [853-DJ 
6-1127SCT/75 
848 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1976] 1 s.c.R. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos. 817 to 819 of 
A 
1968 and 1456 to 1458 of 1969. 
- .\ 
From the Judgment and order dated the 19th May, 1966 and appeals 
by Special Leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 7th November, 
1968 of the Punjab &"Haryana High Court in C.W. No. 2205, 2206 and 
2215 of 1965 and in C. Revsn. Nos. 771 to 773 of 1967 respectively. 
B 
Rameshwar Dial and A. D. Mathur for the appellants (In all the 
appeals). 
K. L. Gosain and E. C. Aggarwala for respdt. Nos. 1 (In C.A. Nos. 
817/68, 1456-14:i7/69) respdt. Nos. I and 3 (in Cas. Nos. 818/68 
and 1458/69) and respdt. No. 1 (In CA No. 819/68). 
, 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
c 
KRISHNA

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