LexSTATE OF UTTAR PRADESH versus KUNWAR SRI TRIVIKRAM NARAIN SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-~ ' r .. 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 213 we have enumerated above. We are therefore not satisfied about the due execution and attestation of this will by the testator and hold that the propoun· der has been unable to dispel the suspicious circum- stances which surround the execution and attestation of this will. In the circumstances, no letters of administration in favour of the respondent can be granted on the basis of it. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court and dismiss the suit arising out of the application for probate made by the respondent. The appellants will get their costs throughout from the respondent, Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb. Appeal allowed. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH v. KUNW AR SRI TRIVITIBAM NARAIN SINGH (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. SuBBA RAO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, J. C. SHAH and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.) Zamindari Abolition-Pension paid in lieu of compen· sation for loss of Tehsildari rights and proprietary rights-If interest in land-U.P. Land Revenue Act, 1901(U.P. 3 of 1901), s.32, els. (a) to (d)-U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land .Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. 1 of 1951), ss.3(8), 4, 63(b). By the order of the then Government the right of S, an anccster of the respondent, to the entire parganas "S¥udpore Bhettree''. was resumed. S challenged in a c1V1l court the authority of the Government to resume his interest in the jagir. During the pendency of the dispute, settlement proceedings were commenced and in 1832 the Settlement Officer reported that to 166 mahals of the "Syudpore Bhettree" pargana, the village zamindars had established their proprietory rights and only on 12 mahals the proprietory right of S had been established. The dispute pending in t_he Civil Court was compromised, and t~e t~rms were fin~hsed in 1838 with H, son of S (who had died m the meantime). The terms, inter alia, were that for 1961 Rani Purnima Devi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev Wanehoo J. 1961 .A.ugull 22. 1911 Stale nf l.:'ttar P1-11rle11Ti v. Kun>rar Sri ]"riv•krmn .Varuin s:11gh 214 SUPREME COUH.T REPORTS [UJG2) 166 mahals settled with the Zamindars, H and his heirs in .;· perpetuity, be paid annually a pension' of !;4th of the ,. collections after deducting the !cbsildari charges and for 12 mahals settled with H allowance be made in the fo1m of rcmi..;sion of J .·4th of the revenue asscsst:<l. The Go\'crnment under the .settlement intendc<l to gh·c a clear fourth of the net revenue of the parganao; as pension. 'fhe allowance and 1 or pension \Vas paid through Treasury Office vcar after vea~ from 1838 to If and his descendants. · · In 1951 the U.P. Legislature enacted the Uttar Pradesh Zarnindari Abo!ition and Land Reforms Act I of 1951, and under s.G(b) of the Act the revenue authorities stopped payment of thr allowance to the respondent. The respondent claimed that by virtue of the notification issued under s.4 of the Act his right to receive pension did not cease because the pension , ... as neither Jand nor immovable property nor an estate Y·.rithin the meaning of the Act and being merely compensation payable to hirn in lieu of the rights of his ancestors ovc:: the estates coin prised v.:ithin the pargana "S}11dpore Bhcttrec", it was no.t liable to vest in the Seate. Held, that the right to recei,·e the allowance ofRs.30,612-8-0 for 166 mahal< from the Government u:"lder the arrange- inent was not in respect of Jand or its re\·cnue; it v.-·as granted as consideration for settlement of a claim litigated in a civil court relating to that lane.I, and could· not in the absence of an express provision to that effect be called "an area included under f • one entry in any of the rcgisters' 1 described in various clauses, >- (a) to (d) of s.32 of the U.P. I.and Revenue Act, 1901. • The intention of the Legislature was to extinguish estates and all derivative rights in estates and to extinguish the interest of intermediaries between the State and the tiller of - the soil. 'The grant of confirmation of title \vhich is in respect > of a right or privilege to land in an estate or its revenue; it must determine under cl. (b) of s.6 of the Act; but a ri![ht to receive an allowance granted in consideration of extinct ion of "' a right to land or land revenue does not by the force of cl.(b) "- determine. The allowance has not the quality of land or land revenue; its qtJantum on
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.