Back
Allahbad High Court
SATISHCHANDRA,J.S.TRIVEDI,N.D.OJHA
Ramesh Chand - Appellant
Versus
Board of Revenue - Respondent
Decided On : 09/25/1972
ZAMINDARI ABOLITION ACT - SECTION 19, 20, 21, 202, 209 - U. P. TENANCY ACT, 1939 - SECTION 27, 59, 165, 171, 180 - U. P. LAND TENURES (LEGAL PROCEEDINGS) (REMOVAL OF DIFFICULTIES) ORDER, 1952 - REINSTATEMENT OF TENANTS - RIGHTS AND LIABILITIES OF REINSTATEMENT TENANTS - STATUS OF SUBSEQUENTLY INDUCTED TENANTS - INTERPRETATION OF RELEVANT PROVISIONS.
Fact of the Case:
The original hereditary tenant of the holding in suit was Bhagmal. The zamindars obtained a decree for the ejectment of Bhagmal under Section 171, U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, on February 7, 1942. In execution possession was delivered to the zamindars on 29th May, 1942. A couple of months later, in July, 1942, the zamindars inducted the appellants, Soran Singh and others as hereditary tenants over the holding in dispute. Bhagmal applied for reinstatement to the holding under S. 27 of the Amending Act of 1947 on 13th August, 1947. The application was allowed by the trial court on 13th July, 1953. Bhagmal was reinstated to the holding; the appellants were declared its sub-tenants entitled to remain in possession for three years, under the proviso to Section 27 (3) of the Amending Act. After the expiry of the three years period for which the appellants were entitled to remain in possession as sub-tenants, Bhagmal on September 20, 1956, filed a suit for ejectment of the appellants under Section 202 of the Zamandari Abolition Act. The suit was decreed on 13th November, 1961.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the proceedings for reinstatement under Section 27 of the Amending Act of 1947 could continue after the coming into force of the Zamindari Abolition Act. The court also held that Bhagmal acquired the status of a sirdar under the Zamindari Abolition Act, while the appellants became asamis or sirdars under the same Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the declaratory decree under Section 59, U. P. Tenancy Act, operated as res judicata? 2. Whether the application for reinstatement under Section 27 of the Amending Act of 1947 could be decided on the merits after 30th June, 1952, the date preceding the date of vesting under the Zamindari Abolition Act? 3. Whether Bhagmal acquired the status of a sirdar under the Zamindari Abolition Act? 4. Whether the appellants became asamis or sirdars under the Zamindari Abolition Act?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the plea of res judicata was not raised at the proper stage and that the appellants had not filed a copy of the judgments rendered in the declaratory suit under Section 59, U. P. Act. Hence, it was not feasible to entertain such a plea. 2. The court held that Section 27 of the Amending Act of 1947 entitled a person ejected, inter alia, under Section 171, U. P. Tenancy Act, to file an application for reinstatement to the holding, within six months of the commencement of the Act. The Court after hearing the parties, could make an order for reinstatement. Under sub-section (5) of S. 27 of the aforesaid Act, the rights and liabilities of the plaintiff revived on the making of an order for reinstatement to the holding. The court also held that the proceedings under Section 27 were within the purview of the U. P. Land Tenures (Legal Proceedings) (Removal of Difficulties) Order, 1952, and hence could validly continue and be decided in accordance with the provisions of the Tenancy Act read with the Amending Act of 1947, notwithstanding their repeal. 3. The court held that on reinstatement the original hereditary tenant becomes the hereditary tenant of the holding, with the same rights and liabilities. The court also held that the effect of the order of reinstatement is nullification of the operation of the decree for ejectment of the applicant. The rights and liabilities of the applicant existing on the date of his ejectment revive. They are not conferred afresh. 4. The court held that the subsequently inducted person becomes an asami under Section 21 of the Zamindari Abolition Act and hence is under a liability to ejectment under Section 202 of the Zamindari Abolition Act.
Final Decision: Both the appeals were dismissed with costs.
SATISH CHANDRA, J. :- A Bench has referred these two connected Special Appeals to a Full Bench because it felt that the decision of another Division Bench in Gopal Narain v. Kanchan Lal, (AIR 1971 All 556) required reconsideration.
2. Bhagmal, the respondent, was the original hereditary tenant of the holding in suit. The Zamindars obtained a decree for the ejectment of Bhagmal under Section 171, U. P. Tenancy Act, 1939, on February 7, 1942. In execution possession was delivered to the zamindars on 29th May, 1942. A couple of months later, in July, 1942, the zamindars inducted the appellants, Soran Singh and others as hereditary tenants over the holding in dispute. Some disputes having arisen between Bhagmal and the appellants, the appellants in 1946 filed a suit under Section 59, U. P. Tenancy Act, for a declaration that they were the hereditary tenants of the holding. The trial court dismissed the suit, but on appeal it was decreed, and it was declared that the appellants were the hereditary tenants. The Board of Revenue upheld the appellate decree on 24th December, 1951.
3. During the pendency of the appeal, U. P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act 10 of 1947 came into force. On 13th August, 1947, Bhagmal applied for reinstatement to the holding under S. 27 of the Amending Act of 1947. The hearing of this application appears to have been stayed because of the pendency of the declaratory suit. The application was ultimately allowed by the trial court on 13th July, 1953. Bhagmal was reinstated to the holding; the appellants were declared its sub-tenants entitled to remain in possession for three years, under the proviso to Section 27 (3) of the Amending Act. The appellants went up in appeal but failed. They filed a second appeal which was also dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The appellants then carried the dispute to this Court under writ petition No. 1471 of 1961. The writ petition, was, however, dismissed on 29th July, 1965 leading to special appeal No. 373 of 1965.
4. After the expiry of the three years period for which the appellants were entitled to remain in possession as sub-tenants, Bhagmal on September 20, 1956, filed a suit for ejectment of the appellants under Section 202 of the Zamandari Abolition Act. The suit was decreed on 13th November, 1961. The appellants' appeal as well as their second appeal were also dismissed. The appellants then filed a writ petition in this Court which was dismissed by a learned single Judge on March 2, 1971. Against this judgment the appellants filed special appeal No. 311 of 1971.
5. The following submissions of the learned counsel for the parties raise the following points: -
(1) Whether the declaratory decree under Section 59, U. P. Tenancy Act, operated as res judicata;
(2) Whether the application for reinstatement under Section 27 of the Amending Act of 1947 could be decided on the merits after 30th June, 1952, the date preceding the date of vesting under the Zamindari Abolition Act;
(3) Whether Bhagmal acquired the status of a sirdar under the Zamindari Abolition Act; and
(4) Whether the appellants became asamis or sirdars under the Zamindari Abolition Act.
6. Before the plea of res judicata can be considered, it must be pleaded at the proper stage. In order to establish such a plea, the copy of the judgment and the decree ought to be filed.
We find that this plea was not taken in the proceedings. The appellants who rely upon this plea have not filed copy of the judgments rendered in the declaratory suit under Section 59, U. P. Act. It is hence not feasible to entertain such a plea.
7. The declaratory suit was filed in 1946. The Courts granted a declaration that the appellants were the hereditary tenants as against Bhagmal. Normally, such a declaration would relate to the rights as they were on the date of the institution of the suit in 1946. It would not affect the change in the rights of the parties, if any brought about by the amending Act, 1947.
8. For the appellants reliance was plac
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
