RANA SHEO AMBAR SINGH versus ALLAHABAD BANK LTD.

Citation: [1977] 3 S.C.R. 33 · Decided: 18-02-1977 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. HAMEEDULLAH BEG · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

r 
I 
1 · 
! 
• 
• 
•• 
33 
RANA SHEO AMBAR SINGH 
v. 
ALLAHABAD BANK LTD. 
February 18, 1977 
[l\I. H. BEG, C. J., A. C. GUPTA :~ND P. S. KAii.ASAM, JJ.] 
Execution of. a 1nort:;:age decree-Proprietary ri1d1ts in Sir, Khudkhast land 
and grove land )\,'hicll were n1ortgaged 1vere extilu.:uisill'd and the Bliumidari 
· rig/it an altogether new right created by U.P. Zaniindari Abolition and Land 
Reforms Act. 1950 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951 )-Jf'i'let1ier trees being a part of a 
grove are included in the "grore-land" which V!!!ifS in th:J U.P. State Govern-
nunt free frqm all encun1brances-Scove of ~ectio-i 6(a) (i). 6(/i) and 1~ of 
the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Refor1ns Act, 1950. 
In Rana Sileo A1nbar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd., Allaliabad (1962) - 2 
SCR p.441, this Court held that the respondent could not enforce his nghts 
ur,der the mortga_ge by the sale of the new Bhumi~la1i rights created in favour 
of the mortgagor by s. 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms 
Act, 1950 and that the respondent could only enforce his rights against the 
appellant in the manner provided under s. 6(h) of the Act read with s. 73 of 
the Transfer of Property Act, and follo\v the compensation awarded to 
the 
intermediary. Despite this decision having been brought to the notice in the 
execution proceedings initiated by the respondent attachment of the trees in 
groves belonging to the ap{'.lellant was ordered by 1he executing Court taking 
the view that there is a distinction behveen the tr.'!es and a grove and grove land. 
The Di iision Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). upheld the 
views of the Executing Court and dismissed the aopeat. 
AllO\\'ing the appeal by certificate, the Court, 
HELD : ( 1 )_ The vieW that there is a dis_tinction beh.\'een trees and a grove 
ar.d p:rove land and, therefore exect1tion aga:nst trees in groves could be pro-
ceeded against cannot be accepted in the light of th~ definition of the intermediary 
g:rove under s. 3(13) of the U.P. Zamindari Aboiition and Land Reforms Act, 
1950, viz., "intermediary's grOve" means grov·~land held or occupied by 
an 
intermediary as ~uch. [34 : D-E, H] 
(2) Groves are only collection of trees in plots of land so as io preclude 
cultivation in them. The uncut trees are deemed to be parts of the la-nd. The 
proposition is W_!ll settled under the general la\v. that trees, before they are cut, 
fcrm parts of 'land'. And are inseparable part is ahvays included in the \\'hole. 
[34E-FJ 
(3) Section 18(1)(a) of the Act provide that an "intermediary grove" is 
bhumidary property. 
Rights in it are parts of bhumidari rights. [34F] · 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2041 
of 
19~. 
. 
. 
(From the Judgment and Decree dated 2.2.1966 of the Allahabad 
High Court (Lucknow Bench) Lucknow in First Execution Appeal 
No 5/62). 
S. N. Pre.sad, for the appellant. 
G. C. M:11hur and 0. P. Rana for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by •• 
BEG. C.J.-'01is appeal by certificate raises the simple 
question 
whether :ertain trees, said to be part of a grove, are included 
in 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
34 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
U 9771 3 S·C.R. 
grove-land, which, under section 6(a) (i) of the U.P. Zamindari Aboli-
tion and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), 
vests in the State of Uttar Pradesh free from all encumbrances. This 
very question was 
raised by the 
respondent-decree holder in the. 
execution proceedings in this very case, between the same 
parties 
which came to this Court on an earlier occasion. 
We have perused 
the judgment of this Court reported in 1962 (2) S.C.R. 441, in the 
case. 
We find that the position taken by the respondent-decree-holder 
then also was that, after the coming into force of the Act, what could 
still be sold in execution of the decree was the right in trees of groves 
as these continued to vest in the intermediary. 
This Court rejected 
that submission and held that after vesting of all the rights mentioned 
in section 6 Gf the Act in the State of Uttar Pradesh, new bhumidhari 
rights came mto existence under section 18 of the Act. 
It also held 
that the only way in which a mortgagee could enforce his right against 
the mortgagor after the Act came into force is provided in section 
6(h) of the Act, read with section 73 of the Transfer of 
Property 
Act, 1882, so that nothing more than the compensation awarded to 
the intermediary could

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