A contract to sell raiyati lands entered into before the grant of raiyati rights is not illegal if the rights are granted retrospectively from the date of vesting and the seller is holding the lands in raiyati rights on the date of the contract.

T.C. Shrivastava, J

1. This second appeal has been filed by the defendants against the reversing judgment of the Additional District Judge, Rajnandgaon, in Civil Appeal No. 31-A of 1956, dated 26-11-1957.

2. The respondent-plaintiff had sued the appellants-defendants for specific performance of a contract of sale of Khasra Nos. 9, 1771/3 and 1996/3, situate in mouza Belgaon, Tahsil and District Khairagarh. The contract was entered into by appellant No. 1 Raj Kumar Chandra Bahadur Singh by Ex. P-1, dated 28-1-1952, Ex P-2, dated 9-7-1952 and Ex. P-3, dated 15-9-1952. The appellant No. 2 is the son of appellant No. 1.

3. The admitted facts of the case are that the suit lands were held in Sir rights by the appellants who were the proprietors of the village Belgaon before the Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estate, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (No. 1 of 1951)-hereinafter referred to as the Act- came into force. After the abolition of proprietary rights these lands became the raiyati lands of appellant No. 1 regarding which a formal order was recorded by the Revenue Officer on 25-5-1953, that is, after the contracts in suit were entered into. Thereafter, there was a partition between the appellants on 29-5-1953 and the suit lands were allotted by appellant No. 1 to appellant No. 2.

4. The plaintiff's case was that the agreements in suit were executed by appellant No. 1 as he needed money for the household expenses of the joint family. Accordingly both the appellants-defendants were liable to perform the contract.

5. The defence was that the three agreements executed were illegal and could not be specifically enforced. A special plea was taken on behalf of appellant No. 2 that as the agreement to alienate was made by his father, without justifying necessity, he was not bound by it and the contract could not be specifically enforced against him.

6. The Courts below have found that the agreement of sale was not for legal necessity and therefore appellant No. 2 was not bound by it. The trial Court found that the contract was legal, but appellant No. 2 was not bound by it. Therefore, it decreed the suit for refund of consideration. The lower appellate Court, however, held that the property in suit ceased to he ancestral joint Hindu family property atter the raiyati rights were granted in favour of appellant No. 1 alone, and therefore appellant No. 1 was bound to execute a sale-deed for the property. The partition did not affect the lights of the respondent for specific performance. Accordingly, the suit was decreed for specific performance of the contract on payment of Rs. 1,800 which was the unpaid part of the consideration.

7. Shri A. P. Sen for the appellants has advanced the following contentions in support of the appeal:-

(1) That the contracts were illegal as the raiyati rights were not granted on the date on which they we entered into and that they were also forbidden by law; and

(2) That the property continued to be joint family property even when the raiyati rights were formally granted to appellant No. 1 and as the agreements were without justifying necessity, the contract cannot be specifically enforced against appellant No. 2.

8. So far as the legality of the contract is concerned, it is true that the property vested in the State Government on the abolition of proprietary rights on 1-4-1951 and the formal order granting raiyati rights in favour of appellant No. 1 were passed on 25-6-1953. However, during the interval the lands were in fact held by appellant No. 1 and he paid rent for the period. The State Government had not taken possession of the same. The order granting raiyati rights under Section 54 of the Act operates from the date of the vesting. It is not really a grant from the date on which the order is made. The use of the word "reserve" in Section 54 indicates that the vesting and the granting of the rights is simultaneous and the rights relate back to the date of the vesting. Accordingly, I ho