SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 1505

2000(6) Supreme 545
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Allahabad High Court)
S.S. Mohammed Quadri & S.N. Variava, JJ.
Shabbir (D) by LRs. & Ors. -Appellants
versus
Abdul Sattar (D) by LRs. & Ors. -Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 669 of 1982
Decided on 13-9-2000
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellants : R.B. Mehrotra, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Gargi Khanna, S. Vidya Dhar Gaur, Dr. I.B. Gaur, Advocates.
For the Respondents : S.K. Bagga, Sr. Advocate, Seeraj Bagga and Sureshta Bagga, Advocates.

Headnote:U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953-Section 5(1)(c)(ii)-Sale-Validity of-Property in joint name and undivided-No prior permission under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) obtained-Sale not valid-Transfer of whole of undivided share did amount to sale of whole of holding-Purchasers cannot claim title under sale deed in question. (Paras 8 to 10)

       

JUDGMENT

S.N. Variava, J.-This Appeal is against an Order dated 21st December 1981 passed in Writ Petition No. 10508 of 1980 by the High Court of Allahabad.

2. Briefly stated the facts are as follows :

Smt. Munni and Smt. Nanni were joint owners of the land in question. On the death of Smt. Munni, after some dispute, her share devolved on Nathua. Nathua had three sons, namely, Shabbir, Kalua and Abdul Gafur. In respect of the land in question consolidation proceedings, under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, were in progress.

3. Smt. Nanni had no issues. She had, however, appointed four Mukhtarams (Power of Attorney holders). On 20th January, 1961, these four Mukhtarams executed a sale deed of her share in favour of Abdul Gafur, Abdul Aziz, Abdul Majid and Abdul Sattar (hereinafter referred to as the purchasers). On 13th July, 1961 post facto permission was granted for such sale. On the basis of this sale deed the A.C.O. passed an order dated 28th August, 1961, directing mutation to be made in the name of the purchasers.

4. When Smt. Nanni learned about the sale deed and the mutation of her share in the name of the purchasers, she filed objections under Section 5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. On 21st June, 1963 her objections were rejected by the A.C.O. However, the revision filed by her was allowed by S.O.C. on 29th July, 1963. The S.O.C. directed deletion of the change in mutation, inter alia, on the ground that the sale deed was invalid as no prior permission had been taken under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The revision filed by these four persons was rejected by the Deputy Director on 9th October, 1963. Deputy Director also held that the sale deed was invalid as no prior permission had been taken under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The purchasers then filed Writ Petition No. 323 of 1964, challenging the order dated 9th October, 1963 of the Deputy Director.

5. During the pendency of the Writ Petition Smt. Nanni died. On 6th May, 1969, a statement was made, before the High Court, that Smt. Nanni had died and that the Petitioners (therein) claiming to be the heirs of Smt. Nanni had made an application for mutation in their favour on that basis. On this statement it was held that the Writ Petition had become infructuous. The same was accordingly dismissed.

6. Shabbir (the first Appellant herein) then filed a case under Section 229(B) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. He claimed that on the death of Nanni, he along with his brothers Kalua and Abdul Gafur had inherited Nanni s share in the said land. He applied for mutation of this land in the names of three brothers. The purchasers i.e. Abdul Gafur, Abdul Aziz, Abdul Majid and Abdul Sattar again made a claim to the land on the basis of the sale deed dated 20th January, 1961.

7. The case was decreed in favour of the Appellant on 21st September, 1973. However, an Appeal filed by the purchasers was allowed by the Commissioner on 5th February, 1974. The Appellant, therefore, filed a Second Appeal before the Board of Revenue. The Board of Revenue, allowed the Second Appeal on 8th October, 1980. The Board of Revenue held that the order dated 9th October, 1963 passed by the Deputy Director in earlier proceedings between Nanni and the purchasers had become final. It was again held that the sale deed dated 20th January, 1961 was invalid for want of prior permission under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953.

8. The purchasers then filed Writ Petition No. 10508 of 1980. This was allowed by the impugned judgment dated 21st December, 1981. Relying on a Full Bench decision in the case of Smt. Ram Rati and Ors. v. Gram Samaj, Jehwa and Ors.1, it has been held that under Section 5(1)(c)(ii) prior permission is required only if a part of the holding is being transferred by sale, gift or exchange. It is held that if the whole of the hol






Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top