Allahabad High Court
Jhurai vs Ram Bali on 27 May, 2013
Author: Sudhir Agarwal
Bench: Sudhir Agarwal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD AFR Court No. - 34 Case :- SECOND APPEAL No. - 570 of 2001 Appellant :- Jhurai Respondent :- Ram Bali Counsel for Appellant :- R.K.Chitragupt,Siddhartha Srivastava Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J.
1. Heard Sri Siddharth Srivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
2. The plaintiff instituted Original Suit No. 37 of 1984 for cancellation of sale deed dated 20.09.1974 on the ground that vendor, Smt. Mohra had died before the date of alleged execution of sale deed; she was only a Sirdar on the date when sale deed was allegedly executed and has no right to transfer the same by sale; and Section 43 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1882") has no application in the case in hand.
3. From the record, however, it cannot be disputed that Smt. Mohra deposited twenty times of land revenue as required under Section 134 of U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 (hereinafter referred to as the "Act, 1951") on 20.09.1974 and thereafter the sale deed was executed. It was a registered deed. The courts below have found that Smt. Mohra died on 28.09.1974.
4. On behalf of appellant reliance is placed on a Single Judge judgment of this Court in Bharat Singh and another Vs. Smt. Bhudevi and another, 1987 RD 23 wherein it was held that after deposit of twenty times of land revenue if the incumbent Sirdar died, no Bhumadhari Sanad could have been issued in favour of that person as it would be a nullity and no benefit or right would accrue on this basis. Relying on Raghunandan Singh Vs. Yashwant Singh, 1978 RD 183, it has been held that the change of status of Sirdar into Bhumidhar occurs when the Assistant Collector makes judicial grant. The Court said that it would mean that when judicial order for grant of a certificate is passed, that would be relevant.
5. However, this view has not been approved by Apex Court in Deo Nandan and another Vs. Ram Saran and others, AIR 2000 SC 1192 wherein it has been held that Bhumadhari rights will accrue to a Sirdar on the date of deposit of twenty times land revenue and rest of the act is only ministerial. In view of aforesaid decision of Apex Court in Deo Nandan (supra) it cannot be said that the law laid down by this Court in Bharat Singh (supra) is a good law and, therefore, the reliance placed on aforesaid decision is totally misconceived. In Deo Nandan (supra) the Apex Court has construed Section 134 of Act, 1951 and said:
"Section 134, from its plain language, indicates and shows that on the application being made and 10 times the land revenue being paid, the sirdar becomes entitled 'with effect from the date on which the amount had been deposited' to a declaration that he has acquired the rights mentioned in Section 137 of the Act."
6. Thereafter it has also considered the Full Bench judgment in Banshidhar Vs. Smt. Dhirajadhari and others, 1971 RC 371 and Single Judge decisions Mobin Khan Vs. Chunnu Khan and others, 1981 A.L.J. 402 and Raghunandan Singh (supra) and then the Court said:
"In our opinion, the said decisions run counter to the plain language and meaning of Sections 134 and 137 as they stood at the relevant point of time."
7. The judgment in Bharat Singh (supra) has heavily relief on Raghunandan Singh (supra) which has been held to be not a correct decision and, therefore, it follows that the decision in Bharat Singh (supra) is also no longer a good law, in view of recent decision of Apex Court in Deo Nandan (supra). It may be worthy to mention that the decision in Deo Nandan (supra) has also been followed by this Court in Chandan Singh Vs. First Additional District Judge and others, 2012(5) ADJ 678.
8. In view of above, no substantial question of law has arisen in this matter. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.05.2013 AK