SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1968 Supreme(All) 155

Allahbad High Court
B.DAYAL,B.N.LOKUR
Prema Devi - Appellant
Versus
Joint Director of Consolidation (Head quarter) at Gorakhpur Camp - Respondent
Decided On : 12/13/1968

Advocates:
Sant Prakash, for Petitioner; Lalji Sahai Srivastava and Bharati Ji Agarwal, for Opposite Parties.

Headnote:

HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - APPLICABILITY TO AGRICULTURAL LAND - U. P. ZEMINDARI ABOLITION AND LAND REFORMS ACT - TENANCY RIGHTS - EFFECT OF HINDU SUCCESSION ACT ON TENANCY RIGHTS - SECTION 14 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION ACT - INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION.

Fact of the Case:

Smt. Prema Devi, widow of Asharfilal, filed a writ petition challenging the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation expunging her name as co-bhumidhar from the revenue records of certain villages. The dispute arose due to a compromise decree in a civil suit filed by her brothers-in-law, Satya Narain Lal and Bhagwati Pd., in which she was given certain plots for her maintenance in lieu of her share in the joint family property. The issue was whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, applied to agricultural land and whether Smt. Prema Devi acquired full Bhumidhari rights upon its enactment.

Finding of the Court:

The Court held that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was not applicable to agricultural land and land tenures, as it was passed under Entry No. 5 of the third list of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution, which relates only to personal law and does not apply to any particular property. The Court further held that even if the Act was applicable, Section 14, which deals with the property possessed by a female Hindu, could not give Smt. Prema Devi any benefit as she was already an Asami under Section 11 of the U. P. Zemindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952, and her rights were governed by that Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, is applicable to agricultural land and land tenures? 2. Whether Smt. Prema Devi acquired full Bhumidhari rights upon the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the entries in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution and the presumption that a Legislature does not intend to exceed its jurisdiction to conclude that the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, was not applicable to agricultural land and land tenures. 2. The Court interpreted Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, and held that it could not apply to Smt. Prema Devi as she was already an Asami under the U. P. Zemindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1952, and her rights were governed by that Act.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed Smt. Prema Devi's writ petition and allowed the writ petition filed by Satya Narain Lal and others, quashing the order of the Joint Director of Consolidation and restoring the order of the Deputy Director of Consolidation in Second Appeal.

Judgement

B. DAYAL, J. :- These two connected writ petitions filed by Smt. Prema Devi, widow of Asharfilal and Satnarainlal and other have been referred to a Division Bench by a learned single judge of this Court as he found it difficult to agree with a single judge decision of this Court Ram Jag Mistri v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1968 All 419. The facts of the case are now no more in dispute and have been decided finally by the Joint Director of Consolidation who, in turn, accepted the findings of fact arrived at in Second Appeal by the Deputy Director of Consolidation. The relevant facts may now be stated in short.

One Udaibhan Lal had four sons, namely, Bhagwati Pd., Satya Narain Lal, Daya Shankar Lal and Asharfi Lal, Smt. Prema

Devi is the widow of Asharfi Lal, who died in the lifetime of his father Udaibhan Lal. When Udaibhan Lal died in 1936, he left zamindari as also sir and khudkasht plots. On the death of Udaibhan Lal, the names of his three surviving sons, namely, Bhagwati Pd., Satya Narain Lal and Daya Shankar Lal, along with Smt. Prema Devi, widow of Asharfi Lal, were mutated in all the three villages, Dasuati, Sonahti and Pathkauli in the district of Basti where the properties of Udaibhan Lal were situated. In 1947, two of the brothers, Satya Narain Lal and Bhagwati Pd., filed suit No. 460 of 1947 in the Court of the Munsif, Basti, for a declaration that Smt. Prema Devi had no share in the property and to this suit Smt. Prema Devi was made a defendant. The third brother Daya Shankar Lal was also joined as a pro forma defendant. This suit was ultimately compromised in 1949 and a compromise decree was passed. Under the compromise decree. Smt. Prema Devi was given certain plots for her maintenance in two villages, Dasuati and Pathkauli. It is now a finding of fact that after the compromise in 1949 Smt. Prema Devi is in possession of those plots. She is not in possession of any other property of the family. In this compromise it was expressly provided that she would be entitled to maintain herself out of the income of those plots but she would have no right to alienate the same. It was further provided in the compromise that on her death, the property would revert back to the collaterals of her husband.

But it appears that even after the compromise the revenue records were not corrected and her name continued as a co-proprietor in all the three villages. On the coming into force of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, her name was recorded as co-bhumidhar of all the khudkasht and sir plots in all the three villages. In 1960, consolidation proceedings started and objections were filed by Satya Narain Lal and others that the name of Smt. Prema Devi was wrongly entered in the revenue records which should be expunged and that she was only entitled to be entered as an Asami over the plots given to her in the compromise in the two villages. Since the property lay in three villages and related to three different khatas, three separate objections were filed. The Consolidation Officer allowed all the three objections and expunged the name of Smt. Prema Devi as co-bhumidhar from all the three khatas. He directed her name to be recorded as an Asami over the plots given to her under the compromise.

On appeal, the decision was reversed and her name was maintained as co-bhumidhar in all the khatas. On second appeal, the Deputy Director of Consolidation restored the order of the Consolidation Officer and allowed the appeal. On revision by Smt. Prema Devi, the learned Joint Director of Consolidation maintained the order expunging her name as co-bhumidhar in the two villages in which she had been given plots under the compromise and retaining her name as a Asami over the plots given to her. But he allowed the revision regarding village Sonahti where she had not been given any plot. The Joint Director of Consolidation thought that her rights in that village were not governed by the compromise. He directed that h


























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top