SURAJ MAL AND ANOTHER versus RAM SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1986] 3 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 07-08-1986 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
·~~ 
SURAJ MAL AND ANOTHER 
v. 
RAM SINGH AND OTHERS 
AUGUST 7, 1986 
B 
(0. CHINNAPPAREDDY ANDMURARIMOHONDUTT, JJ.] 
--t 
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953---us. 4, 4A, 5 and 52-
A-· 
Consolidation proceedings -When deemed to be closed-consequence 
of Notification under s. 4(2). 
c 
~ 
Uttar Pradesh (Supplementary) Act, 1952-s. 3-Benefit of-
When can be claimed-Person not having any lawful right in land-Not 
;.. 
entitled to claim cultivatory possession. 
Sona Devi, mother of respondents nos. 3, 4 and S, inherited cer-
D 
lain Zamindari property from her father. By a registered deed of sale 
she sold it to the predecessor in interest of the appellants and one Abbey 
Ram. At that time she had no son, but subsequently, respondents nos. 3 
to S were born to her and at the time of her death all of them were 
minors. 
E 
"" 
Respondents Nos. 3 to S tiled a suit against the appellants and 
others for a declaration that their mother had only a life interest in the 
zamindari property sold by her, and that the transfer not having been 
-
supported by any legal necessity, was not binding upon them. They also 
t 
prayed for recovery of possession of the property and for mesne profits. 
F 
The suit was decreed by the Munsif. During the pendency of the appeals 
filed by both the parties, the village in which the disputed land is situate, 
~ 
was notified for consolidation operations and, therefore, in view of s. S 
of the Consolidation Act, all further proceedings of the appeals were 
stayed. 
In !he consolidation proceedings, the names of the appellants were 
G 
recorded in the revenue papers as Bhumidar in respect of the disputed 
land. The respondents tiled objections under s. 12 of the Consolidation 
Act, raising questions of title regarding the disputed land. The Consoli-
dation Offirer referred the matter under sub-s. 4 of s. 12 to the stain-
tory Arbitrator, who made an Award in favour of the Respondents and 
H 
487 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[19861 3 S.C. R. 
A 
recorded the findings that Sona Devi had only a life interest in the 
1'-
disputed land, that the sale deed executed by her was neither for legal 
necessity nor fur the benefit of the estate of her deceased father, that the 
transfer of the disputed land by the sale deed was not binding on the 
respondents Nos. 3 to 5 and that they were entitled to reocover posses-
B 
sion of the disputed land. 
·Two petitions of objections to the Award, filed by the appellants, 
*' 
were dismissed by the Civil Judge. The Additional District Judge in 
second appeal took the view that as the sons of Abhey Ram, who was 
' 
also one of the transferees under the said sale deed, were not made 
r· 
parties in the proceedings, the reference to the Arbitrator was illegal 
c 
and the Award made by him was invalid, and that the Arbitrator was 
guilty of legal misconduct inasmuch as he had committed an error of 
law apparent on the face of the Award, allowed the appeals, and set 
aside the order of Civil Judge and also the Award of the Arbitrator. 
-ii 
D 
A Single Judge of the High Court allowed the Revision Petitions of 
the respondents, set aside the order of the Additional Di•trict Judge and 
restored that of the Civil Judge and also the Award of the Arbitrator. 
Dismissing the appeals, this Court, 
E 
HELD: 1. The object of sub-s. (2) of s. 52 of the U. P. Consolida-
!ion of Holdings Act 1953 is that when an order has been passed by a 
Court under the provisions of the Constitution or in cases or proceed-
ings pending under the Consolidation Act, the right or interest involved 
under such order or in the pending cases or proceedings under the -
Consolidation Act, should not be again subjected to the consideratfon in 
) 
F 
the consolidation proceedings started by virtue of a notification under s. 
4-A oftbe Consolidation Act. [495E-F] 
+ 
2. Section 4-A will apply only where the consolidation operations 
remained closed for a period of JO years from the date of the notifica-
tion under s. 52(1). But, in view of s. 52(2), consolidation operations 
G 
shall be deemed to have not been dosed in respect of two cases men-
tioned therein. So, s. 4A will have no application to these two cases. 
Consequently, t,he provision of s. 4 as also the provision of s. 5 will not 
apply to these two cases. [4950-E] 
3. The proceedings out of which the instant appeals ari'° are 
H 
proceedings under the Consolidation Act and, therefore, s. 5(2)(a) will 
• 
( 
S. MAL v. RAM SINGH 
489 
have no

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