1. Suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage of Sir Sankalap land under Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
1965 Supreme(SC) 352
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C.J.I., K.N. WANCHOO, M. HIDAYATULLAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND P. SATYANARAYANA RAJU. JJ.
Mohd Idris and others, Appellants
Versus
Sat Narain and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 962 of 1964.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. B. Agarwala, Senior Advocate, (M/s. F. C. Agarwala and P. C. Agarwala, Advocates, with him), for Appellants; Mr. S. P. Sinha, Senior Advocate, (Mr. M. I. Khowaja, Advocate, with him), for Respondents Nos. 2 to 7.
Advocates:
C.B.AGARWAL, E.C.AGARWAL, M.I.KHVAJA, P.C.AGRAWAL, S.P.SINHA
C.B.AGARWAL, E.C.AGARWAL, M.I.KHVAJA, P.C.AGRAWAL, S.P.SINHA
Under the General Clauses Act, the repeal of a statute does not affect legal proceedings commenced before the repeal unless a different intention appears. Pending litigation continues to be governed by the law existing at the time of institution, especially when subsequent saving clauses reinforce this principle.
Headnote:(A) U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act, Section 12 - U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Sections 14(2)(a), 21(1)(d), 200, 202(c) - U.P. General Clauses Act, Section 6 - Amending Act XVIII of 1956, Section 23 - Redemption of usufructuary mortgage - Effect of repeal of the governing Act on pending proceedings - A suit filed for redemption under the Agriculturists Relief Act remains maintainable even after the repeal of said Act, provided the proceedings were commenced before the repeal and no contrary intention is expressed in the repealing statute. (Paras 4, 7)
(B) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act - Status of mortgagee - Where land was the sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor, a mortgagee with possession is excluded from claiming the right of a Sirdar under Section 14(2)(a). (Para 5)
(C) U.P. General Clauses Act, Section 6 - Effect of repeal - Unless a different intention appears, the repeal of an enactment shall not affect any remedy or legal proceeding commenced before the repealing Act came into operation. (Para 7)
Facts of the case:
A suit for redemption of a usufructuary mortgage was filed under the Agriculturists Relief Act. After the filing, a land reform act came into force, and the Agriculturists Relief Act was subsequently repealed. The mortgagees contended that they had acquired the status of Sirdars or Asamis under the new land reform legislation and that the civil court's jurisdiction was ousted, requiring the suit to be heard by a Revenue Officer.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the mortgagees could not be Sirdars because the land was the sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor. It further held that the proceedings before the Munsif were competent as the repeal of the Agriculturists Relief Act did not impair the right to continue the suit.
Issues: Whether a suit filed under the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act remained competent and maintainable before a civil court after the Act was repealed and jurisdiction over similar matters was conferred upon Revenue Officers under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reasoned that under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, pending legal proceedings are not affected by the repeal of a statute unless a different intention is evident. The absence of specific provisions to transfer pending cases to the new authority and the presence of a subsequent saving clause in the 1956 Amending Act indicated that pending litigation should be governed by the law in force at the time of institution.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Whether a suit filed under the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act remains competent after the Act's retrospective repeal and the enactment of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition Act. (Para 4 , 5 )
3. The repeal of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act did not oust the jurisdiction of the Munsif over pending proceedings per the U.P. General Clauses Act. (Para 7 )
4. Pending legal proceedings are not affected by the retrospective repeal of a statute unless a different intention is expressed, as per Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act. (Para 7 )
5. Appeal dismissed; the proceedings before the Munsif were held to be within jurisdiction. (Para 7 )
6. Does the retrospective repeal of an Act affect legal proceedings commenced before the repeal?
No, unless a different intention appears, the repeal does not affect any remedy or legal proceeding commenced before the repealing Act came into operation, and such proceedings may be continued and concluded as if the repealing Act had not been passed. (Para 7 )
7. Can a mortgagee with possession claim Sirdari rights over land that was Sir Sankalap of the mortgagor?
No, under Section 14(2)(a) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, if the land was sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date of mortgage, it is deemed to remain so for the purposes of the Act. (Para 5 )
8. How does a saving clause in a subsequent amending act affect the jurisdiction of courts in pending suits?
A saving clause, such as Section 23 of the Amending Act XVIII of 1956, explicitly ensures that proceedings instituted before the amendment continue to be heard and decided by the court or authority before which they were originally commenced. (Para 7 )
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH, J.: This is an appeal by special leave against an order passed by the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 1077 of 1957 dated October 9, 1961 in a suit in which a decree for redemption on an application under S. 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act has been passed. The appellants are the successors-in-interest of one Suleman who was the original mortgagee. The original respondent in this appeal Sat Narain was the successor-in-interest of one Jantari who was the original mortgagor. Subsequently, Sat Narain sold his interest to others who have been ordered by us to be joined as respondents under O. 22, R. 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure on their application in this behalf (C. M. P. No. 2081 of 1965). The land in dispute measures 5 bighas and 3 bighas (Khata No. 2 situate in Bhagwatipura, pargana Kewai, district Allahabad) and consists of 5 plots Nos. 26, 27, 29, 30 and 32. Jantari had mortgaged the said land with Suleman on October 4, 1929 and the mortgage, now it is admitted, was usfructuary in nature. It is also admitted not that the land was Sir Sankalap of Jantari.
2. On May 27, 1952, Sat Narain filed an application under S. 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act in the court of the Munsif (East) Allahabad on the allegation that the mortgage had been paid off from the usufruct of the land and he was entitled to redeem it. As required by the Agriculturists Relief Act the claim was made in the prescribed form and set out the accounts by reason of which it was claimed that the mortgage was satisfied. The defendants, who represented Suleman (the mortgagee) opposed the application. Two written statements were filed on October 4, 1952 and March 31, 1953. Both the statements alleged that the plaintiff was not an agriculturist and hence the suit was not maintainable under S. 12 of the U.P. Agriculturists Relief Act. They also stated that the mortgage was not satisfied from the usufruct as the land was not productive. One of the written statements denied even the mortgage. All the defendents claimed that they had become Sirdars by reason of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act and that the suit was not, therefore, maintainable. Although the Abolition Act had come into force from July 1, 1952 no other claim was set up. Nor was the suit challenged as incompetent by reason of any provisions of the Abolition Act.
3. The learned Munsif framed five issues which he decided in favour of the plaintiff before him. He held that there was a mortgage as alleged; that the plaintiff and the original mortgagor were agriculturists; and that the mortgage had been satisfied from the usufruct. He also held that the defendants (mortgagees) had not become Sirdars and the suit was maintainable. In the result he passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff on November 24, 1953. The defendants appealed to the District Court but by a judgment dated April 17, 1957 their appeal was dismissed. All the above findings were confirmed by the Civil Judge, Allahabad who disposed of the appeal. The main point which was urged before the appellate Court was that as the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act was repealed by an Act, in 1953 which amended the Abolition Act, the suit under S. 12 of the U. P. Agriculturists Relief Act was rendered incompetent and the plaintiffs could not eject the representatives of the mortgagee except in accordance with the provisions of the Abolition Act. The contention was not accepted by the learned Civil Judge, Allahabad. An application for revision was then filed in the High Court but it was dismissed by the order impugned in this appeal as the decree of the Munsif had already been executed and possession had been delivered on May 1, 1957 to the successor-in-interest of the original mortgagor. Mr. Justice Mithan Lal who decided the revision, held that no interference was called for as the property had gone back to the original owner and substantial justice had already been done. From the last
