LexVIDYA SAGAR versus SUDESH KUMARI & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• f ' VIDYA SAGAR v . SUDESH KUMAR! & OTHERS October 8, 1975 193 A [A. ALAGIRISWAMI, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] B- U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms AcJ, 1950 (1 of 1951), ss. 4 and 6-Pre-emption decree-If executable after tlze application of Act to land. The co-sharen with the appellant, in the proprietary interest of certain lands. sold their share to the respondents. The appellant fil~d a suit fo~ pre4 emption, and in pursuance of the decree in his favour_ deposited the considera- tion of the sale deed in court. But, before that date, that is, from July 1, 1970, the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950. had. come into force in the district where the property was situate. On the question whether C the decree was executable, HELD.: The decree was inexecutable in view of ss. 4 and 6 of the Act. (a) Having deposited the money, the appellant got himself substituted for the vendees in respect of the share in the property. But, since the veodees were still in possession after their purchase, the appe!lant had to obtain pos- session of the land and for that purpose had to take execution proceedings. The appellants' right to possession was, thus, based upon the decree which I> was itself based on the fact that he was a co-sharer of the proprietary right in the land. Since, however, on and from July 1, 1970, nnder ss. 4 and 6 of the Act, all rights, title and interest in that land ceased to exist and vested in the State, and nothing survived in favour of the erstwhile proprietors-the appellant or the vendors-the decree became devoid of substance and incapa· ble of execution. Jt could not be contended that the decree was still execu"' table in the absence of an express provision voiding the decree or taking away the right under the decree by operation of law. [196B-G] (b) The decision of this Court in Rana Shea Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd., [19621 2 S.C.R. 441 is a complete answer to the submission of the appellant. In that case, it was held that on the application of the Act to the mortgagor"; estate, but for s. 6 (h) of the Act, the mortgagee would have nothing to proceed against under his mortgage-decree, and that under that provision, a special remedy was provided in. favour of a mortgagee for proceeding only against the compensation money under s. 71, Transfer of Property Act. E . [198 A-Cl F Shivshankar Prasad She.Ji and Ors. v. Baikunt/z Nath Singh &; Ors., [1969~ 3 s.C.R. 909, referred to. [The rival claims with. regard to the rights. if any, in the land under s. 18 • ?f the Act. will have to be w·orked out by the parties in appropriate proceed- ings.] [198E-F] Kailas/z Rai v. Jai lai Ram and others, A.I.R. 1973 S.C. 893, ·referred to. G CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1537 of 1974. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 23rd November, 1973 of the Allahabad High Court in Execution Secon,1<:1 Appeal No. 2738 of 1971. L. M. Pant and R. C. Prasad for the Appellant. L. i'vf. Singhvi and S. K. Dhingra for Respondents 2-4. H .A 194 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1976] 2 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GosWAMI, J. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal by special leave against the judgmt\nt of the Allahabad • High Court is whether a decree for pre-emptioµ obtamed prior to the enforcement of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, .1950 (U.P. Act No. 1 of 1951) survives for execution .B after the enforcement of the Act in the particular area in which the land is situated. Briefly the facts are as follows. :- The plaintiff (appellant here~n) and defendants 5 and 6 were co- sharers in proprietary interest of lands in Khata Khewat No. 1 of village Noyagoa111 Chandan Singh Bandobasti Pargana Bhabarkota, 'C · Tehsil Kaldhungi, District Nainital. Defendants 5 and 6 sold by registered sale deed a certain share of the land in that Khata Khewat in favour of defendants 1 to 4 (respondents herein). The p~aintift' thereupon filed a suit for pre-emption arid obtained a decree which was affirmed by the High Court in second appeal on April 27, 1970. The plaintiff also deposited the consideration of the sale deed in court on August 20, 1969, as ordered. The Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abo- ID lition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (briefly the Act) was brought -< into force in the district N ainital wliere the property is situated wit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.