LexSMT. BULAKI (DEAD) BY LRS. versus LAL DHAR AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
\ - -- SMT. BULAKI (DEAD) BY LRS. A v. LAL DHAR AND ORS. FEBRUARY 19, 1997 (K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.) B U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1950 : Gift-Alienatio11 of land by way of gift-f'ennissio11 obtained sub- sequently-Held, there is no infinnity i11 the gra11t of sanctio11. C Ss.171 (1 )(g), 172( 1) (b ), 175-Devolution of illterest after death of last mall-Bhumida1'-Three gift deeds by last male holde1'-Two executed 011 Ju11e 1/2 1951 a11d third i11 1957-Held, two gift deeds executed in 1951 are valid and the properties u11der those deeds are not open to succession-As regards, third gift deeds, the land holder died i11 1957 leaving behi11d two D wives-As a co11Sequence u/s. 171 (1) (b) succession is ope11 and the two widows would joillt/y succeed to the property-Sillce pending proceedings one widow died, the other co-widow would succeed to state by operation of s.175-f'ending appeal other co-widow also died-The three surviving daughters would succeed to the estate of the male holder by operation of E s.172(J)(b) read with s. 17l(l)(g)--!11 the circumsta11ces in respect of the properties co11veyed under the third gift deed of 1957, all the three daughters are e11titled to I/3rd share each. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3456 of F 1979. From the Judgment and Or.der dated 14.12.77 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A. No. 500 of 1965. P.P. Juneja for the Appellant. T.N. Singh, S.N. Singh and B.M. Sharma for the Respondents. The following Order of the Court was delivered : G This appeal, by special leave, arises from the Judgment dated H 205 206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 2 S.C.R. A December 14, 1977 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal No. 500/65. The admitted facts are that the last male-holder in the family, Bechan had two wives, Bhungi and Bhikni. Bhungi and given birth to three B daughters, Gulabi, Sulabi and Bulaki, the appellant. Gulabi died on 7.2.1963. Smt. Sulabi and Smt. Bulaki were substituted as legal heirs after the demise of Bhungi. Bechan's second wife Bhikni had a son, Laldhar, born to her former husband, and brought him along with her when she was married to Bechan. After her marriage with Bechan she ha:d a daughter by name Gunia. During the life time of Bechan, who was a bhumidar under C the U.P. -Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, he had ex- ecuted three gift deeds in favour of Laldhar. The Fist two gift deeds were made in the year 1951 and the third gift deed on 18.11.57. When the said gift deeds were challenged by the appellant, the appellate Court and the High Court upheld the validity of the fist two gift deeds and declared the D third gift deed to be invalid. Shri Juneja, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has con- tended that the permission for alienation was not properly obtained from competent officer and that, therefore, it was invalid. He has pointed out that the first two gift deeds were made on June 1, 1951 and June 2, 1951. E On 1.1.1951 an application for permission to the Sub-Divisional Officer was made and the sanction thereof was granted on the next day, namely, June 2, 1951. By operation of the proviso to Section 24 of the Act, it is contended that even subsequent permission validates the alienation by way of a gift. We find no infirmity in the grant of sanction. It is then contended by Sri p Juneja that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to grant the permission since the lands were situated outside his Division. The High Court has looked into the map and held that the lands are situated in that Sub-Division only and that, therefore, he has got jurisdiction to grant the permission. It then contended that it was not the plea of either of the parties and the High Court would not have gone into that question for the G first time. May be the learned counsel is right in this behalf, but with a view to satisfy 4is conscience the learned Judge had secured the offi~ial map and looked into the area and found, as a fact, that the lands were. situated within the area of the officer who granted permission. Even though it is found to be not legally permissible, since the learned Judge has done it to H do justice, we do not interfere with the finding in the appeal under Article -- .. BULAKI v. LAL DHAR 207 136. Therefore, the two gift deeds of June 1/2, 1951 are valid. Under those A two deeds, Laldhar has got the properties and
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.