Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the entitlement to bhumidhari rights under Section 18(1)(a) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, after the abolition of zamindari in Uttar Pradesh. The appellant, Kailash Rai, was the son of Mst. Ramrati and grandson of Ram Adhare. After Ram Adhare's death, the respondents, Jai Jai Ram and others, got their names recorded over the properties, alleging that Ram Adhare was a member of a joint family with them. Mst. Ramrati filed Suit No. 918 of 1945 seeking declaration of her title to the inherited property and possession. She died pending suit, and the appellant was substituted. The Additional Civil Judge decreed the suit in his favour on 16 May 1947, and the appellant obtained possession through court on 13 June 1947. The respondents' appeal against that decree was dismissed by the High Court on 18 March 1952. The Abolition Act came into force on 1 July 1952. Thereafter, the appellant filed Suit No. 1132 of 1953 in the Munsif's court, Gorakhpur, for division of holdings, claiming that all plots were joint bhumidhari and his one-fourth share should be separated. The respondents contested, asserting exclusive bhumidhari rights. The Munsif dismissed the suit; the District Judge on appeal upheld the appellant's claim under Section 18(1)(a) and decreed partition. The respondents' second appeal to the Allahabad High Court led to an interim order dated 27 July 1965 calling for a finding on whether the respondent-defendants were in exclusive possession of the khudkasht and sir plots. The District Court reported that the defendants were in exclusive possession since 1947. The High Court accepted that finding and by judgment dated 19 September 1966 allowed the appeal, dismissing the suit on the ground that the appellant was not in cultivatory possession. The Supreme Court allowed the appellant's appeal by special leave. The Court held that under Section 18(1)(a), lands in possession of, held, or deemed to be held by an intermediary as sir, khudkasht or grove on 30 June 1952 are deemed settled with such intermediary, who becomes entitled to bhumidhari rights. The expression 'possession' includes constructive possession, and possession of one co-sharer is possession for all co-sharers unless ouster is pleaded and proved. Since ouster was not pleaded, the appellant was in constructive possession. Further, the words 'held' and 'deemed to be held' connote right or title and create a statutory fiction, respectively, so the appellant's prior declared title supported his claim. The Court followed Budhan Singh v. Nabi Bux and overruled Rama Kant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation. It also held that the appellant need not have appealed against the interim order calling for a finding. Accordingly, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment and upheld the appellant's entitlement to bhumidhari rights and partition of his one-fourth share.
Headnote
A) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - Bhumidhari Rights - Section 18(1)(a) - Requirements for Vesting - Under Section 18(1)(a) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, all lands in possession of, or held, or deemed to be held by an intermediary as sir, khudkasht or intermediary's grove on 30 June 1952 shall be deemed settled with such intermediary, entitling him to take or retain possession as bhumidhar; khudkasht means land other than sir cultivated by landlord himself, by servants or hired labour - Held that the appellant satisfied the requirement as co-sharer under constructive possession and deemed holding (Paras not mentioned). B) Property Law - Co-sharer Possession - Constructive Possession - Possession of one co-sharer is possession on behalf of all co-sharers unless ouster pleaded and established; expression 'possession' in Section 18(1)(a) includes constructive possession - The first appellate court found no ouster; therefore exclusive physical possession by respondents did not exclude appellant's legal possession as co-sharer - Held that appellant was in constructive possession of khudkasht lands (Paras not mentioned). C) Statutory Interpretation - Meaning of 'Held' and 'Deemed to be Held' - Section 18(1)(a) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 - 'Held' connotes existence of right or title, not actual personal cultivation, and 'deemed to be held' creates statutory fiction to treat co-sharers as bhumidhars - The legislature's use of 'personal cultivation' in clause (b) for Avadh indicates different meaning for 'held' in clause (a); prior declaration of appellant's right and title supported deemed holding - Held that lands could be considered held or deemed held by appellant (Paras not mentioned). D) Precedent - Followed and Overruled - Budhan Singh v. Nabi Bux and Rama Kant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation - Supreme Court followed Budhan Singh & Anr. v. Nabi Bux & Anr., [1970] 2 SCR 10 and overruled Rama Kant Singh v. Deputy Director of Consolidation, AIR 1966 All 172 regarding co-sharer bhumidhari rights - Held that prior Allahabad view was incorrect (Paras not mentioned). E) Civil Procedure - Appeal Against Interim Order - No Need to Challenge Interim Finding - The appellant was not required to file appeal against High Court's order calling for finding from first appellate court as it was intermediary stage; he could await final decision - Held that failure to appeal interim order did not bar challenging final judgment accepting finding (Paras not mentioned).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant, as a co-sharer without actual cultivatory possession, was entitled to bhumidhari rights under Section 18(1)(a) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, and whether the High Court erred in requiring exclusive possession for such rights; also, interpretation of 'possession', 'held', and 'deemed to be held'.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; the Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated 19 September 1966 and upheld the appellant's claim under Section 18(1)(a) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, entitling him to partition of his one-fourth share in the joint bhumidhari holdings.
Law Points
- Section 18(1)(a) U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
- 1950 vests bhumidhari rights in intermediary for sir
- khudkasht or grove lands in possession
- held or deemed held on 30.06.1952
- Possession includes constructive possession of co-sharer
- Co-sharer's possession is for all co-sharers unless ouster pleaded and established
- 'Held' means right or title not personal cultivation
- 'Deemed to be held' creates legal fiction to confer bhumidhari rights
- Interim order calling for finding need not be separately appealed
