1974 Supreme(All) 176

Allahbad High Court
SATISHCHANDRA,P.N.BAKSHI
Ram Jag Misir - Appellant
Versus
The Director of Consolidation, U. P. - Respondent
Decided On : 09/13/1974

Headnote:

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - SECTION 14 - APPLICABILITY TO AGRICULTURAL PLOTS - RESTRICTED ESTATE - INTERPRETATION - EFFECT OF COMPROMISE DECREE - MAINTENANCE RIGHTS - OCCUPANCY TENANCY RIGHTS - ZAMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT - SECTION 10 - ASAMI RIGHTS - MAINTENANCE RIGHTS - APPLICABILITY TO OCCUPANCY TENANCY PLOTS - REVERSION OF PLOTS ON DEATH OF MAINTENANCE HOLDER - SUBSTITUTION OF HEIR PENDENTE LITE - NO INHERITANCE OF DISPUTED LAND.

Fact of the Case:

Sheo Harakh died leaving three sons, Ram Rup, Ram Jag, and Ram Sundar. Ram Sundar died in 1939, and his widow, Smt. Phulbasi, filed a suit for partition, claiming a one-third share in the family properties. The other family members contested the suit, claiming that Ram Sundar had died as a member of the Hindu undivided family and his interest went to his other brothers by survivorship. During the pendency of the suit, the parties settled their dispute outside court. Smt. Phulbasi recognized that her husband had died in a state of jointness with his brothers, and the defendants recognized that Smt. Phulbasi was entitled to maintenance, in lieu of which she was given a large number of plots, including two occupancy tenancy plots in dispute. The agreement stated that Smt. Phulbasi will enjoy them for her life and have no right to transfer the plots given to her on any ground. This agreement was filed before the court, where the suit for partition was pending, and soon after the court passed a decree in terms of the compromise.

Finding of the Court:

The compromise decree restricted the lady's right to enjoy the plots for her lifetime. She did not have the right to transfer them. These restrictions would continue to apply to her. Assuming that the decree itself did not prescribe a restricted estate, because it was based upon an earlier family settlement, the position would nonetheless be the same. The lady did not acquire the interest of occupancy tenancy in the plots. She was entitled to remain in possession of the plots allotted to her under the compromise decree, during her lifetime, in lieu of maintenance. With her death, the plots were liable to revert to the other members of the family. Her personal heirs had no title or interest in them.

Issues: 1. Whether the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, apply to agricultural plots? 2. Whether the compromise decree prescribed a restricted estate in favor of Smt. Phulbasi? 3. Whether Smt. Phulbasi acquired the interest of occupancy tenancy in the plots? 4. Whether Smt. Phulbasi was entitled to remain in possession of the plots allotted to her under the compromise decree, during her lifetime, in lieu of maintenance? 5. Whether the plots were liable to revert to the other members of the family upon Smt. Phulbasi's death? 6. Whether Smt. Girja Devi, as the substituted heir of Smt. Phulbasi, inherited any interest in the disputed land?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, apply to agricultural plots. 2. The compromise decree prescribed a restricted estate in favor of Smt. Phulbasi, as it restricted her right to enjoy the plots for her lifetime and prohibited her from transferring them. 3. Smt. Phulbasi did not acquire the interest of occupancy tenancy in the plots, as the compromise agreement did not purport to transfer the occupancy tenancy rights vesting in the other members of the family to her. 4. Smt. Phulbasi was entitled to remain in possession of the plots allotted to her under the compromise decree, during her lifetime, in lieu of maintenance. 5. The plots were liable to revert to the other members of the family upon Smt. Phulbasi's death, as she had no right to transfer or alienate them. 6. Smt. Girja Devi, as the substituted heir of Smt. Phulbasi, did not inherit any interest in the disputed land, as Smt. Phulbasi herself had no inheritable interest in the plots.

Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the learned single Judge was set aside, the writ petition was allowed, the orders of the consolidation authorities were set aside, and it was directed that the names of the appellants shall be recorded over the plots in dispute.