A transfer in contravention of Section 19-A(1) of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act is void only quo the State for the purposes of the Act, but is valid and binding between the parties inter se.

S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J.

1. Whether a transfer in contravention of the provision of sub-section (1) of Section 19-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act is void ab initio or is only void qua the State but valid and binding between the parties inter se, is the meaningful question necessitating this reference to the Full Bench. Equally at issue is the discordance of the two Division Bench judgments of this Court in Labh Singh V/s. Punjab State, 1971 Cur LJ 719 and Godhu V/s. Kanshi Ram 1979 Pun LJ 496, bearing on the point.

2. The aforesaid issue is common to this set of four Execution Second Appeals and it, therefore, suffices to advert briefly to the facts in E.S.A. No.1715 of 1976, relevant to the legal issue. Amin Lal and others respondents had originally brought a suit for possession for agricultural land measuring 544 Kanals 7 Marlas against the appellants on the allegation that the said land had been mortgaged by their father Lachman Singh. The mortgagee inducted the appellants as his tenants thereon. The said mortgage was redeemed later and it was the case that the appellants were continuing in possession of the land as trespassers. Upon these premises a decree for possession of the land detailed in the said suit was prayed for which was ultimately granted on the 31st of August, 1959, against all the appellants excepting Megha defendant.

3. The respondent-decree-holders thereafter applied for the execution of the aforesaid decree by means of an execution petition preferred in Court on the 5th of April, 1969. It was mentioned in the execution application that the land described therein had been allotted in lieu of the land in respect of which the decree was passed and hence the decree-holders claim to be put in possession of an area measuring 391 Kanals 1 Marla. The appellants filed an objection petition to contest the execution proceedings. Therein inter alia they pleaded that the decree-holders were big landowners and that in any case the redemption of the mortgage of the suit land by the decree-holders amounts to a transfer in favour of a big landowner in contravention of sub-section (1) of Section 19-A of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act). On these premises it was the appellants stand that the decree was inexecutable. On the pleadings of the parties as many as seven issues were framed but the material one which calls for notice herein is No.3 in the following terms :-

"Whether the decree is not executable as alleged ?"

The learned trial Judge on this issue held that the decree sought to be executed was not null and void and was, therefore, executable. In view of the findings on the other issues as well the objection petition of the appellants was dismissed. However, on appeal the learned senior Subordinate Judge relying basically on Labh Singh s case (1971 Cur LJ 719) (Punj and Har) held that the decree amounted to a transfer under Sec.19-A(1) of Act and was, therefore, hit by the provisions of sub-section (2) of the said section and consequently was null and void and inexecutable. The appeal was consequently accepted and the execution application was dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

4. This set of appeals first came up for hearing before my learned brother S.P. Goyal, J. He pointedly noticed that the issue involved herein was whether the property redeemed by a mortgagor is a transfer within the meaning of Section 19-A of the Act and if the mortgagor becomes a big landowner by redeeming that property whether the order or decree of redemption would be null and void in view of the provisions of sub-section (2) of the said section. In view of a conflict of judicial precedent the matter was referred for decision by a larger Bench.

5. Before coming to the core of the controversy, it seems apt to notice an area of agreement in regard to which the learned counsel for the parties are not at all at variance, nor the decisions of this Court are in any way