IMPORTANT POINT
When the suit lands in disputed khatas were all tenancy lands, succession to them is to be governed by special mode prescribed in Tenancy Law applicable to the parties on the relevant date.

Headnote:U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953-Sections 4, 48 & 49-Tenancy lands of category Bhumidari and Sridari -Special mode of succession provided under tenancy law-Widow inherited absolute title to 1/4th share of her husband-She could execute a valid gift deed in favour of her daughters-Her daughters were preferential heirs to male collaterals in branches of her husband s brothers.
       Held : All tenancy lands in possession of intermediaries including of the categories Bhumidari and Sir are saved from vesting in the State under Sections 18 & 19 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. Under special mode of succession provided in tenancy law, Akashi had inherited the land not as limited owner but as absolute owner. She was the preferential heir in the absence of any male descendant of her husband-Abhilash. She being an absolute owner of the land inherited by her as sole heir of her husband could make a valid gift in favour of her daughters. Even in the absence of Gift-deed after death of widow Akashi on 18.10.1951, in accordance with the special mode of succession provided in Section 172 read with Section 171 of the UP Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, her daughters (married or unmarried) were preferential heirs to male collaterals in branches of her husband s brothers. The legal position thus not in dispute is that if the lands were tenancy lands, both under the Agra Tenancy Act, 1926 and U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939, the widow of a holder had a right to inherit as an absolute owner from her husband. The argument, therefore, advanced on the basis that the lands were Sir and Khudkasht is misleading and not based on facts pleaded and found. Such argument was rightly not considered by the High Court and rejected by the revisional Authority under the Consolidation Act of 1953. We also reject the same as being without any basis. (Paras 13 & 14)
       The present legal position as it stands during pendency of the second appeal before the High Court is that the civil court s decree declaring the gift deed as invalid has not attained finality because during pendency of proceedings before the first appellate court after remand by the High Court, proceedings under Consolidation Act of 1953 had commenced and the jurisdiction of civil court stood ousted. We, therefore, find no merit in any of the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellants. (Para 19)

JUDGMENT

Dharmadhikari, J.-A common judgment is being passed in these two appeals as the subject matter of dispute in both of them is the same. Civil Appeal No. 6302 of 2001 has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.8.1998 passed by the learned single Judge of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 678 of 1979. Rejection by order dated 09.12.1998 of Review Petition No. 54933/98 filed by the appellants against the said judgment has given rise to connected Civil Appeal No. 6303 of 2001.

2. The facts of this case are many and somewhat complicated but the question of law involved is a short one.

3. It is not disputed by the appellants, as is apparent from the contents of their petition for special leave, that the lands in Khata Nos. 91, 92, 95 and 96 are tenancy lands of category Bhumidari and other lands in dispute in Khata Nos. 256, 283, 356 and 357 are tenancy lands of another category Sirdari . The lands are in village Patilo Gausput, District Azam Garh in the State of Uttar Pradesh.

4. The writ petition before the High Court arose out of order dated 09.11.1976 of the Assistant Director, Consolidation, Azam Garh which was passed in exercise of his revisional powers under Section 48 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act of 1953 [for short the Consolidation Act of 1953 ].

5. Bereft of unnecessary details, the relevant facts are as under:-

The main ancestor of the parties named Duggan was survived by four sons viz., Prag, Tulsi, Narain and Ram Saran. Narain died issueless. The elder son - Prag left behind a son named Abhilash. Abhilash died in the year 1922 leaving behind widow Akashi. She died in 1951. The lands in dispute constituting her alleged 1/4th share were gifted by her during her lifetime on 02.5.1945 in favour of her two daughters namely Mitia and Basanti. Contesting respondents- Chandrapati and Manner are sons respectively of Mitia and Basanti and they now claim 1/4th interest in all the properties left behind by Parag and his son - Abhilash.

6. The appellants represent the branches of two other sons of Duggan viz., Tulsi and Ram Saran.

7. For better appreciation of the relationship between the parties, the following pedigree as contained in the impugned judgment of the High Court may be reproduced:-

Duggan (d)

l l l l

Prag (died) Tulsi (died) Narain Ram Saran (died)

(1924) (died in 1924) (1924)

Abhilash Manbodh (died) (died in 1922)

l l l

Bhajju Guddar Balbhadar Bhola (died) (died) (died) (died) (Appellant No. 5)

Mst. Akashi

(died 18.10.1951)

l l l l

Audhar Sehdar Kanahi Sonai

(all appellants)

l l l l

Smt. Mitia Smt. Basanti Lalsa Kalsa (Married) (Marr

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2003 Supreme(SC) 897

IMPORTANT POINTWhen the suit lands in disputed khatas were all tenancy lands, succession to them is to be governed by special mode prescribed in Tenancy Law applicable to the parties on the relevant date.

IMPORTANT POINT
When the suit lands in disputed khatas were all tenancy lands, succession to them is to be governed by special mode prescribed in Tenancy Law applicable to the parties on the relevant date.