The deletion of Clause (b) of Section 23(1) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, by Section 6 of the U. P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954, and later by Section 3 of the U. P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1956, removed the bar against recognition of the sale and the appellant became entitled to enforce her rights as the transferee of the mango grove.

Judgement

SHELAT, J. :- This appeal by certificate raises the question of construction of Clause (b) of Section 23 (1) of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, (1 of 1951, hereinafter referred to as the Act) and the effect of its deletion by Section 6 of the U. P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act. XX of 1954 and later by Section 3 of the U. P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act XVIII of 1956.

2. Some of the relevant facts may first be set out :

Prior to June 14, 1952 Kapurthala Estate was the owner of the mango grove in suit. On June 14, 1952 the Estate sold the said grove to the appellant. A notice to quit was thereafter served on the-respondent tenant but as he failed to deliver possession the Kapurthala Estate and the appellant filed on May 12, 1954 the suit out of which this appeal arises. On October 1, 1959 the Kapurthala Estate withdrew from the suit leaving the appellant the sole plaintiff. The respondent-tenant raised several defences in his written statement. The Trial Court raised several issues amongst which issue No.7 was : "Whether any rights have accrued in law in favour of plaintiff No. 2 under the sale deed dated 14th June 1952." The Trial Court tried that as a preliminary issue and held that the sale deed in favour of the appellant was void, that she did not acquire thereunder any interest in the said property, and in that view dismissed the suit. In appeal the learned Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, held that the sale deed was not void and that after the deletion of Clause (b) of Section 23 (1) by Amendment Act, XX of 1954 the appellant was entitled to maintain the suit despite withdrawal by the Kapurthala Estate. Consequently he remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding the rest of the issues. Against that order the respondent filed an appeal in the High Court contending once again that the said sale was void and conferred no right title or interest in the appellant, and being void from its inception, remained void for all time and could not be taken into consideration in spite of the deletion of the said clause (b). The reamed Single Judge who heard that appeal dismissed it holding that the said sale was a valid transfer that Cl. (b) of Section 23(1) only provided a ban against recognition for any of the purposes under the Act and that after its deletion first by Act XX of 1954 and then by Act XVIII of 1956 the appellant could maintain the suit though the Kapurthala Estate had withdrawn therefrom. The Division Bench of the High Court which heard the Special Appeal against the judgment of the learned Single Judge differed from the view of Section 23 (1) (b) taken by him allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit.

3. Counsel for the respondent contended (i) that the effect of Section 23 (1) (b) was that transfers made after July 7, 1949 were void for any purpose whatsoever; and (ii) that in any event withdrawal by the Kapurthala Estate from the suit must date back from the inception of the suit and therefore the Division Bench was correct in dismissing the suit. To appreciate these contentions it is necessary to read first some of the provisions of the Zamindari Abolition Act.

4. The object of the Act as declared by its long title is to provide for abolition of the Zamindari system involving intermediaries between the tiller of the soil and the State, for acquisition of their rights, title and interest and to reform the law relating to land tenures consequent upon such abolition and acquisition. Section 3 (12) defines an "intermediary" to mean with reference to any estate a proprietor, under-proprietor, sub-proprietor, thekadar, permanent lessee in Avadh and permanent tenure-holder of such estate or part thereof. Clause 13 define, an intermediary grove" to mean grove land held or occupied by an intermediary as such. Section 4 authorises the State Government to declare by notification that as from the date to be specified, all estates shall vest in the State and as from the date so specified all such estate