SARDHA RAM (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus NAKLI SINGH AND ORS.

Citation: [1989] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 769 · Decided: 26-10-1989 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.H. KANIA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

SARDHA RAM (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
v. 
NAKLI SINGH AND ORS. 
OCTOBER 26, 1989 
lM.H. KANIA, S. RANGANATHAN AND 
KuLDIP SINGH, JJ.] 
East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act, 1949: Landholder-Notice 
to bring uncultivated land under cultivation-Sale of a_portion of land-
Sale proceeds-Utilisation for reclamation of the remaining land-
Whether sale for necessity. 
Code of Civil Procedure 1908: Sec. JOO Second appeal-Con-
current findings of fact by courts below High Couri-Whether to 
interfere 'with.--
A 
B 
c 
The respondent's predecessor-in-interest received notice under 
D 
the East Punjab Utilisation of Lands Act, 1949 for bringing 'his 
uncultivated land under cultivation. Thereafter be sold a portion of his 
land by executing two sale deeds in favour of two different vendees for 
the purpose of utilising the sale proceeds to reclaim the remaining land. 
The respondents filed suits for setting aside the sales, contending that 
the alienation was made without legill necessity, which were dismissed 
E 
by the Triill Court. The f'm;t appeals were disinissed by the Senior 
Subordinate Judge. 
On second appeal a learil.ed single judge of the High Court held 
that the sale in favour of the first vendee was for legill necessity only to 
-the extent of Rs.1,000 and the sille in favour of the second vend_ee was 
F 
entirely without necessity. 
On a further appeill the Division Bench reversed the decision of 
the single jlidge with regard to first vendee holding that ibe sale was_ for 
necessity but upheld the decision with regard to second vendee boldfug 
that the sale In bis favour was without legill neceS..ity. Hence this apjieill 
G 
by the second vendee. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1. The sale in favo\Jr of the second vendee was a valid sille 
and is not liable to lie Impugned by the representatives _or the 
H 
successors-hi-lllteteSt of the vendor. [774El 
769 
770 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1989] Supp. 1 S.C.R. 
A 
2. Under the provisions of the East Punjab Utilisation of Lands 
Act, 1949 a notice could be given- requiring a Ianif holder to bring 
uncultivated land under cultivation after reclamation within a period of 
30 days from the date of issue of a notice in that regard. Failing 
this, the area could be resumed by the Government and leased out 
to some .other cultivators or society for cultivation for a period of 
B at least 8 years. f773B I 
2.1 A land owner receiving a notice under the said Act bas two 
options before him. He can either own bis helplessness to reclaim the 
land and permit it to be leased out by the Government to other persons 
for cultivation for a substantial period. Or be may decide that be should 
c make an attempt to make atleast a part of the lands fertile by selling a 
portion of the land and reclaiming the rest with the help of the sale 
proceeds. A bona fide decision taken by him to exercise the latter optfon 
cannot be said not to be an act of good management. [773G-H; 774A] 
3. If the sale in favour of the first vendee in the same circum-
I) stances was a valid sale, it is very difficult to say that the sale in favour 
of the second vendee was not. !h_e necessity for both the s~_les "'as the 
situation arising out of the receipt of the notice under the East Punjab 
Lands Utilisation Act. In fact the findings of the Trial Court and the 
first lWPellate court on this issue were findings of fact which did .not call 
for interference by the High Court. [774A-BJ 
E 
CIVIL APPELLATE-JURISDICTION:_ Civil Appeal No. 836 
of 1974. 
From _the Judgment and Order dated 23.8.1971 of the Punjab & 
Haryana High Court in LP.A. ·No. 487 of 1968. 
I' 
S.P. Goyal and D.D. Sharma for the Appellants. 
A. Minocha for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
RANGANATHAN, J. Nawal Singh sold 102 bighas of land to 
Nathu Ram for Rs.8,000 by a sale dated 11th February, 1952. He also 
executed a sale-deed in respect of 90 bighas of land to Sardha Ram for 
a sum of Rs.4,500 on 28th October, 1952. There were recitals in the 
two sale-deeds regarding the necessity for the sale. The first sale-deed 
Ii stated: 
.--· 
( 
:-
SARDHA RAM v. NAKLI SINGH [RANGANATHAN, J.J 
771 
"(1) The land is Banjar Qadim. According to the law in 
force, it is obligatory to break and cultivate this land. 
Otherwise the Government would give it out by auction to 
some other person. 
A 
(2) I need money to bring other land under the plough, to 
sink a new well and for other agricultural works, such as 
B 
purch
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.