LexRAMJI DIXIT & ANOTHER versus BHRIGUNATH & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A M~I .DIXIT & ANOTHER v. BHRIGUNATH & OTHERS January 12, 1968 B (J. C. SHAH, V. IUMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.j c E U.P. Zamlndari Abolition and Land Reforms A.ct (lf.P. I of 1951 ), u. 152, 171, 112r-Jnheritance by Hindu widow-Become> bhumidhdr- Whether life estate. On the death of her husband, certain cultivatory lands devolved on a ~indu widow. . She became a bhumidhar on the enactment of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land ·Reforms Act of 1951. Thereafter ahe gifted the lands to respondents I _and 2. On her death, the appellants, whp were reversioners to her husband's estate filed a suit claiming that the widow had only a life-estate in the bhumidhari lands, and therefore. the gift which was to enure beyond her life time was incompetent. The end was dismissed. Dismissing the appeal, this Court, _ HELD : There is nothing in the Act which indicates that when ,. female who inherits the rights of a bhumidhar, under s. 171 or s. 172 0< a. 172A, any residuary interest remains vested in any other person. Under the Act she is the owner of the property : the entire estate is vested in hes:. Absence of testamentary power in a female bhumidhar qua her holding is reconcil~ble with devolution upon the heirs of the female bhumidhar •. and· an absolute title during her life time. That is clearly illnstrated by 1he nature of the interest which the heirs of the classes referred to in s. 172(~ (a) (ii) hold. [774 H, 776 BJ CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 458 of 1965. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 10, 1963 of the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 1315 of 1958. F J. P. Goyal and Sobhag Mal· Jain, for the appellants, G H M. K. Ramamurthi, Shyamala Pappu and Vineet Kum4T, fpr respondents Nos. 1 and 2. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Shah, J, One Raj Kishore was possessed of sir and khudka..Wrl lands, which on his death in 1923 devolved upon his widow Sanwari. With the coming into force on July 1, 1952, of the U.P, Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1 of 1951, Sanwari acquired the status of a bhumidhar in respect of those sir. and khudkasht lands. On December 18, 1952, Sanwari made a gift of the bhumidhari lands in favour of respondents 1 & 2. Sanwari died in 1954. Claiming to be the nearest reversioners to the estare of Raj Kishore, the appellants commenced an action in the Court of Munsif, Deoria, for a declaration of their title to the lands gifted by Sanwari, and for a decree for possession of those lands on the 768 SUPREME COURT RLl'ORTS [1968] 2 S.C.R. pica, inter alia, that holding only a Hindu widow's estate in the bhumidhari lands Sanwari was incompetent to create an interest by gift which was to enure beyond hr lifetime. The suit was dismissed by the Trial Court, and the decree was confinr.ed in appeal by the Additional Civil Judge, Deoria. In second appeal before the High Court of Allahabad Desai, C.J., and S. N. Dwivedi, J., agreed with lhe judgments of the courlS below. Jagadish Sahai, J., was of the opinion that Sanwari held in the bhumidhari lands ill dispute only a life estate. Against the decree of the High Court sonfirming the decree of the District Court, the plaintiffs have appealed to this Court. The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act l of 1951 was primarily intended to abolish the rights of intermediaries and to define the inletest of various classes of holders in possession •f agricultural lands who since the extinction of the rights <>f inter- lllediaries had direct relation with the State. By s. 4 on the com- 111encement of !he Act all estates situate ill Uttar Pradesh stood transferred to and vested in the Slate free from all encumbrances. E~tinction of the interest of rhe intermediaries did not however affect the interest of the tenants in the land who derivi:d their rlght of occupation from the intermediaries. By s. 129, for the purpose of the Act, there were to be three classes of tenure-holders-(!) bhumidhars; (2) sirdars and (3) asamis. Bys. !30 every person belonging to one cf the classes specified in els. (a) & (b) was tc be a hh11midhar and was to have all the rights and to be subject to all the liabilities, conferred or imposed upon bh11midhflrs by or under the Act. The persons so entitled to bhumidhari rights were-(}) all persons who as a consequence of the acquisition n~ .:stales be- came bhumidhars under s.18; and ( 2) all p
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.