SMT. KALAWATI versus BISHESHWAR

Citation: [1968] 1 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 17-08-1967 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SMT. KALAWATI 
v. 
BISHESHWAR 
August 17, 1967 
223 
B 
[J. C. SHAH, S. M. SIKRI AND J. M. SHELAT, JJ.] 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (U.P. l of 
1951) s. 23(l)(b)-Transfero made ajter July 7, 1949, if rights could be 
enforced-U.P, Land Reforms (Amendment) Act 1954 (U, P. 20 of 
1954). s. &-Effect-U .P. Land Reforms . (Amendment) 
Act, 1956 
(U. P. 18 of 1956), s. 3-Effect. 
C 
The U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 
was enforced from July 1, 1952. Section 23(l)(b) of the Act pro-
vided that no transfer of any estate after July 7, 1949 shall be 
recognised for any purpose and the estate shall be deemed to cOlltinue 
to vest in the transferor. By U.P. Land Reforms (Amending) Act, 
1954, s. 
~3(1) (b) was deleted prospectively from October 10. 
1954 and by U. P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1956, s. 23(l)(b) 
was 
deleted 
retrospectively 
from the date 
of 
commence-
D ment of the principal Act with regard to the right of the trans-
feree to compensation and rehabilitation grant.· K, the owner of 
a grove sold it to the appellant in June 1952. Thereafter, on the 
respondent's failure 
to deliver possession. K and the appel-
lant filed a suit for respondent's eviction. In 1959, K withdrew 
from 
the suit. The respondent 
contended 
that the effect of 
s.23(1)(b) was that the transfers made after July 7. 1949 were void 
from its inception and neither the prospective deletion nor the 
E retrospective deletion conferred the status of bhumidar on the 
appellant, and that in any event, K's withdra·Nal from the suit 
must date back to the institution of the suit and therefore the suit 
must be dismissed. 
HELD: The appeal must be allowed. 
The sale in favour of the appellant was valid and not void. It 
was she who became the intermediary and it was her rights as 
F such intermediary whlich s. 4 of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition & 
Land Reforms Act abolished. By virtue of the combined effect of 
ss. 4 and 18 ,Di the Act she became the bhumidar. But for cl. (b) 
of s. 23(1) her rights as such bhumidar would have been recognised 
and she would have been entitled to the rights as such bhunlidar 
under the Act. But by reason .of the bar against recognition of the 
sale no court could recognise and give effect to those rights. As 
G the property was deemed to continue to vest in the transferor 
it was he who could exercise these rights. As a result of the dele-
tion of cl. (b) from October 10, 1954 the bar against recognition 
was removed and the transferee could enforce his right as from 
that date. This deletion of cl. (b) in 1954 was prospeotive. There-
fore, for the period between July I. 1952 and October JO, 
1954 
the rights of the transferee under the Act such as the right to 
compensation and rehabilitation grant, w.ould still not be recognis. 
H ed. To remove this difficulty by another Amendment Act, 1956 
cl. (b) was deleted retrospectively wfth regard to transferee's right 
to compensation and rehabilitati<Ul grant. [228 E-H; 230 A-DJ. 
When the suit was filed though the appellant was 
the inter-
mediary and the bhumidar under s. 18, her right to eV'ict the res-
pondent could not be recognised. As the estate was deemed to 
224 
SUPREME coua·r REPOR1'~ 
[1968) l 1.o.a. 
continue to vest in the transferor, K had to join in the suit as co- A 
plaintiff. From October 10, 1954 the bar was removed and the appel-
lant became entitled to maintain the suit in her own right and the 
withdrawal of K as plaintiff did not effect the maintainability of 
the suit. 
The respondent's contention that the withdrawal must 
be deemed to date back to the institution of the suit had no force. 
No such order was made by the Trial Court which ordered the 
withdrawal. The withdrawal therefore took place after the bar 
under cl. (b) against recognition of tte appellant's rights was delet-
B 
ed and. the appellant therefore had the right to maintain the suit 
[230 D-F]. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURSISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 963 of 
1964. 
Appeal from the judgement and decree dated April 2, 1963 
of the Allahabad High Court, Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal c 
No. 30 of 1962. 
B. P. Jlw and C. P. Lal, for the appellant. 
S. S. Shukla, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Shelat, J.-This appeal by certificate raises the question of D 
construction of cl. (b) of s. 23(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition 
and Land Reforms Act, I of 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the 
Act) and the effect

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