SMT. GULAB DEVI versus THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 8 S.C.R. 528 · Decided: 06-11-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.M. PUNCHHI, K.S. PARIPOORNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SMT. GULAB DEVI 
v. 
THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS. 
NOVEMBER 6, 1996 
[M.M. PUNCHHI AND K.S. PARIPOORNAN, JJ.] 
UP. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 19501 UP. Tenancy 
Act, 1939 : 
C 
s.17 4(h)ls. 35(b) and (i)-Succession to a woman holding an interest 
otherwise than u!s 171 or s.172-Widow succeeding to the tenancy of her 
deceased husband-After the death of the widow both unmarried daughters 
succeeded to the estate-Thereafter Zamindari Abolition Act came into 
force-One of the sisters got married and the other sister died-Succession 
to the estate of deceased sister-Held, the estate was obtained by the 
D appellant and her sister on t.he death of their father which occurred prior 
to the coming into force of the Zamindari Abolition Act and under the 
provisions of s.35 of the Tenancy Act-Therefore, provisions of s.174 of the 
Zamindari Abolition Act would apply and as provided in clause (h) .thereof, 
sister is an heir without the qualification of being a married or an unmarried 
sister-The appellant is declared to be the heir to the estate of her deceased 
E sister. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 8556 of 
1983. 
F 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.1.83 of the Allahabad High 
Co~rt in C.M. W. No. 7446 of 1973 
G 
Yogeshwer Prasad, Ms. Rachna Gupta and Ms. Deep Shikha Bharti, 
for Mrs. Rani Chhabra for the Appellant. 
M.K.D. Namboodir; (NP) for Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
We have remained unassisted because no one has appeared for the 
H respondents. 
528 
.. 
GULAB DEVI v. DY. DIRECTOR OF CON SO LIDA TION 
529 
From the judgment under appeal we gather that the High Court has A 
proceeded on the basis of the genealogy drawn that Jageshwar Singh had 
I /4th share in a joint holding. On the death of Jageshwar Singh, his widow 
Bhagwanti succeeded to his estate under Section 35 of the U.P. Tenancy 
Act, 1939 [the Act] which provides for a special rule of succession to a 
male tenant in contrast to personal law, and under head (b) thereof, the 
widow comes in the second position after the male lineal descendants in B 
the male line of descent coming in the first. After her death, resort again 
had to be made to the same provision to discover who next would succeed 
to the estate and it turned out to be that under head (i) , the unmarried 
daughter had a right to succeed. On that basis, both the daughters of 
Jageshwar Singh, namely, Guiab Devi, the appellant herein and Ram 
Kumari (whose estate is in dispute) succeeded to the property of their C 
father in equal shares. After such succession, the U.P. Zamindari Abolition 
and Land Reforms Act, 1950 [the Abolition Act] came into force. While 
so, on 30.10.1954 Ram Kumari died. Shortly thereafter, consolidation 
operations commenced in the village. Since Guiab Devi concededly stood 
married on the date of the death of Ram Kumari, dispute arose between 
her and the collaterals of Jageshwar Singh relating to succession to the D 
estate of Ram Kumari. The Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer 
held in favour of the appellant but the Deputy Director, in revision, and 
the High Court, in affirmance, have held that the marriage of the appellant 
stood in the way of her succeeding to the estate of her sister, Ram Kumari. 
We are, thus, required to discover from the inter-play of the legal provisions E 
whether the view taken by the Deputy Director [Consolidation] and the 
High Court is correct. 
As said before, bot~ the sisters ware tenure-holders in their own 
right to their respective shares on the date when the Abolition Act came 
into force. It is not disputed that they had received their respective tenancy F 
holdings having succeeded to the estate of their father in accordance with 
Section 35 of the Tenancy Act. It would be worthy of emphasis that they 
had not succeeded to the estate under the provisions of the Abolition Act. 
Section 171 of the Abolition Act governs succession to male G 
Bhumidhars or Assamis. It is maintained by learned senior counsel for the 
appellant that the word "Bhumidhar" would include a tenure-holder and 
thatthe provision is applicable to the case of the estate involved. We proceed 
on that footing since this assertion has not been refuted. Now, no succession 
to a male has opened after the coming into force of the Abolition Act. So, 
section 171 is out of the way. Section 172 provides succession in the case H 
530 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1996]

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