STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR. versus RAVI KUMAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 936 · Decided: 18-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SURYA KANT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
936
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND AND ANR.
v.
RAVI KUMAR (DECEASED) THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4983 of 2009)
MAY 18, 2023
[SURYA KANT AND J. K. MAHESHWARI, JJ.]
Tenancy laws: Title claim – On facts, land leased out to one
in 1924 for thirty years under the 1895 Act, who sold it to
predecessor-in-interest of the respondents vide sale deed of 1947
and thereafter the land was recorded in his name and on his death
his successor, and they are continuously recorded as Bhumidhar of
the said land – Different set of legal proceedings which proceeded
in parallel – Issues pertaining to sale of ownership rights or
leasehold rights to the respondents; status of the respondents under
the applicable tenancy law and if the status entitled them for
ownership of the suit land; if the leasehold rights validly transferred
under the 1924 lease deed; determination of the 1924 lease deed,
breach of the condition of prior approval and expiry of initial lease
deed period; and was it possible for predecessor of respondents to
be accorded the status of ‘Occupancy Tenant’ under the 1939 Act,
which resulted in them being subsequently accorded the status of
‘Sirdar’ under the Zamindari Notification – On appeal, held: High
Court while deciding the issue of ownership in favour of the
respondents on the strength of the Sale Deed, have come to different
conclusions as such to the nature of the instrument – Both these
parallel findings by the High Court have been without any serious
examination of the nature of the Sale Deed itself – Reasoned finding
on both the nature of Sale Deed as well as whether the same was
violative of conditions of the 1924 Lease Deed very important,
because of which the issue of determination of lease remains
unanswered – High Court made sweeping remarks in respect of the
tenancy status without any serious consideration as to whether the
same were legally tenable or not – No reference is made to any
proceedings wherein the status as an occupancy tenant was ever
granted to the predecessor of the respondent and, if so, how and
when the same culminated into the status of ‘Sirdar’ under the
Zamindari Notification – Thus, there are compelling circumstances
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 936 : 2023 INSC 550
936
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
937
which have been left unanswered by the courts below, because of
which determination of several factual issues have been left in limbo
– In dearth of appropriate records, ownership rights in respect of
an immovable property cannot be decided casually – Thus, the Court
is reluctant to give a final opinion on the matter until the Court is
satisfied on the basis of the entirety of documents – Matters remanded
to the High Court for a fresh adjudication on the issues formulated,
even though pending before this Court for more than 15 years –
Government Grants Act of 1895 – U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939.
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The High Court while deciding the issue of
ownership in favour of Respondents on the strength of the Sale
Deed, have come to different conclusions as such to the nature
of the instrument. Respondents in the plaint filed by them in 1983
Injunction Suit, the respondents claim to tenure holders who were
later accorded the status of ‘Bhumidhar’ on the basis of Zamindari
Notification. On the other hand, in the Second Writ Petition, the
respondents stated that the Sale Deed was actually in respect of
the title per se. The recitals of the Sale Deed highlight that the
relationship between JV and ML seemed more akin to that of a
vendor vendee in a title sale than that of the sale of leasehold
rights. [Paras 37 and 38][965-B-C; 966-E]
1.2 In respect of the two parallel findings given by the High
Court, the respondents for the first time before this Court have
given up the finding which treated the Sale Deed as a sale of title.
However, it is noted that both these parallel findings by the High
Court have been without any serious examination of the nature
of the Sale Deed itself. The High Court erred in respect of these
findings and as the same was essential to determine the present
dispute on merit, it is deemed to be a fit case to exercise the
power of remand. Additionally, despite these findings being a
serious lacuna to reach a conclusive decision, the appellants have
raised no serious objection to the modified stand taken by the
respondents wherein they stated that the Sale Deed was in respect
of leasehold rights only. [Paras 39 and 

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