Back
2006 Supreme(All) 2511
[2006(7) ADJ 265]
ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
BEFORE : S.U. KHAN, J.
TULSI AND OTHERS ....Petitioners
Versus
DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND OTHERS ...Respondents
(Civil Misc. Review Petition No. 21452 of 1992 in C.M.W.P. No. 7681 of 1975, decided on 11th September, 2006)
Headnote:Hindu Succession Act, 1956—Section 14—U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950—Sections 11, 18, 171 to 174—Succession to agricultural lands—Claim of petitioners, based their claim upon succession, as reversioners under Hindu law, on death of original Bhumidhar—Other petitioner claimed succession, on ground that he had been adopted as original Bhumidhar—D.D.C. held that original record-holder did not leave behind any heir, hence, her agricultural lands vested in State on principle of Escheat—Both petitioners challenged that order—Whereby Court held that adoption has been proved in case of other petitioner—And, hence, his writ petition was allowed—S.L.P. against—Dismissed by Supreme Court—In view of permission, granted by Supreme Court, instant Review Petition was filed in High Court—Even though Section 14 of Succession Act, applies to nature of interest of a widow in agricultural lands—However, principles of succession, as given under Succession Act, or Shastric Law, was not applicable to succession of agricultural lands in Uttar Pradesh, except when expressly provided otherwise—Therefore, it was not Section 14(2), but Section 14(1) of Succession Act applied—Argument that petitioner was reversioner of husband of Bhumidhar, hence, entitled to inherit, was not tenable—Therefore, petitioner, could not inherit property of deceased-Bhumidhar—Hence, review petition liable to be dismissed. [Paras 10, 12, 16, 17, 20, 22, 23, 24 and 25]
Hon’ble S.U. Khan, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
2. Shrimati Gangajali died in 1971. On her death dispute arose regarding succession to the agricultural land left behind by her. Tulsi and others, original petitioners, based their claim upon succession as reversioners under Hindu Law and Lalji, petitioner in connected Writ Petition No. 3186 of 1975 claimed succession on the ground that he had been adopted by Shrimati Gangajali. Deputy Director of Consolidation, Ballia through judgment and order dated 13.1.1975 passed in Revision Nos. 528, 529, 565 and 566 held that Shrimati Gangajali did not leave behind any heir, hence her agricultural property vested in State on the principle of escheat. The said judgment was challenged by both i.e. Tulsi and others and Lalji. Number of writ petition filed by Lalji was 3181 of 1975. Both the writ petitions were disposed of by this Court through common judgment dated 13.11.1991. This Court held that adoption of Lalji by Gangajali has been proved.
3. In respect of Tulsi this Court held as follows :
“So far as Tulsi is concerned, his claim has rightly been negatived by the Consolidation Authorities in that he does not come within the list of the heirs specified in Section 171 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. No other basis of claim was set up by Tulsi and accordingly, I find no merit in his writ petition No. 7681 of 1975, Tulsi v. Deputy Director of Consolidation and others, and the same is dismissed.”
4. Writ Petition of Lalji was allowed. Tulsi and others filed Special Leave Petition No. 7647-48/ 92 against the aforesaid judgment of the High Court. The Supreme Court by the following order dismissed the Special Leave Petition :
“The petition for special leave are dismissed.
It is contended by Mr. Satish Chandra, learned senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, that the claim on the basis of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act was urged in the High Court and that the statement in the judgment of the High Court that “No other basis of claim was set up by Tulsi...” is not correct. In that case, the petitioners may file a Review Petition in the High Court, if so advised.”
5. In view of the above permission granted by the Supreme Court this review petition has been filed.
6. Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act is quoted below :
"14. Property of a Female Hindu to be her Absolute Property.—(1) Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not as a limited owner.
Explanation.—In this sub-section “property” includes both movable and immovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a partition or in lieu of arrears of maintenance, or by gift from any person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after her marriage, or by her own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other manner whatsoever, and also any such property held by her as Stridhana immediately before the commencement of this Act.
(2) Nothing contained in sub section (1) shall apply to any property acquired by way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or order of a civil Court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or other instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property.”
7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner-applicant has urged that a suit was filed in the year 1928 being Suit No. 87 of 1928, which was decided on 28.2.1929 and through the said judgement it was directed that Shrimati Gangajali will remain in possession of the property in dispute till her death and after her death the property shall revert to the plaintiffs or to their heirs or such of the reversioners of the plaintiff’s family as may be alive on her death and that defendants (Shrimati Gangajali) shall have no right to sell, mortgage, or gift or lease permanently or otherwise transfer the proper
