http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 4  

PETITIONER: HIRA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: KASTURIBAI & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       03/09/1996

BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) BENCH: SINGH N.P. (J) MAJMUDAR S.B. (J)

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      This appeal  has been  filed on behalf of the defendant to suit in question. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (hereinafter to be referred  to as the respondents) filed the aforesaid suit for declaration that the registered sale deed dated November 12, 1960  executed by  their  mother  (respondent  No.3)  in favour of the appellant was invalid because on that date she had no  title over  the lands  in question. On behalf of the respondents it  was asserted  that their  mother  after  the death of  their father,  Khuman Singh  some time in the year 1955-56 remarried  in the  year 1958 and because of that she forfeited the right t the lands which had devolved on her as widow.      There is  no dispute  that Khuman  Singh, the father of the respondents  was a  pakka tenant in respect of 23 Bighas of land  in Khata  No.27 which  is  the  subject  matter  in dispute. He died some time in the year 1955-56 before coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as  the ’Succession  Act’). According to the respondents, their mother  had become  a pakka  tenant after the death of their father  under the provisions of the Madhya Bharat Land Revenue and  Tenancy Act  (hereinafter to be referred as the ’Tenancy Act’),  but as  she remarried  in the year 195, she forfeited the  right of  pakka tenant  and as such she could not have  transferred the  lands through the registered sale deed in  favour of  the appellant  on November  12,1960. The transfer was questioned by the respondents saying that under the provisions  of the  Tenancy Act  after  the  remarriage, their mother forfeited her right over the lands in question, and as such lands devolved on the respondents. The trial  Court decreed the suit holding that the mother of the respondents  had no  right, title  or interest  over the lands in  question  after  she  remarried  in  view  of  the provisions of  the Tenancy Act. That finding was affirmed by the Court  of appeal  and by  the High Court by dismissal of the second appeal filed on behalf of the appellant. According to  the appellant, as respondents No.3, the mother

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 4  

of  the   respondents,  after   coming  into  force  of  the Succession Act  had become  the absolute owner in respect of the property  in her  possession, she  could have conveyed a valid title to the appellant by the sale deed aforesaid. Section  of the Succession Act is as follows:      "4. Overriding effect of Act -      (1)  Save  as  otherwise  expressly      provided in this Act -      (a)    any     text,    rule     or      interpretation of  Hindu law or any      custom or  usage  of  that  law  in      force immediately before the effect      with respect  to any  matter  which      provision is made in this Act;      (b)  any   other   law   in   force      immediately before the commencement      of this Act shall cease to apply to      Hindus  in   s   far   as   it   is      inconsistent  with   any   of   the      provisions contained in this Act.      (2) For the removal of doubts it is      hereby   declared    that   nothing      contained  in  this  Act  shall  be      deemed to   affect the providing of      any law for the time being in force      providing  for  the  prevention  of      fragmentation    of    agricultural      holdings or  for  the  fixation  of      ceilings or  for the  devolution of      tenancy rights  in respect  of such      holdings."      On a plain reading sub-section (1) gives the provisions of Succession  Act an  overriding effect. But subsection (2) of Section  4 is in the nature of proviso i.e., exception to sub-section (1).  It clearly  says that nothing contained in the said  Act shall deem to affect the provisions of any law for the time being in force;      i) providing  for the prevention of      fragmentation    of    agricultural      holding;      ii) for fixation of ceiling;      iii)  for   devolution  of  tenancy      rights in respect of such holdings;      According to the respondents because of sub-section (2) of Section  4  of  the  Succession  Act  the  provisions  of Succession Act  shall not  have overriding  effect  over  he provisions of  the Tenancy  Act. Under the provisions of the Tenancy Act,  because of  Section 83  read with  Section  82 after the  remarriage the  right of a pakka tenant which had devolved on  the mother  of the  respondents devolved on the heirs of Khuman Singh i.e. the respondent.      Section 83 provides:      "83. Succession  in the  case of  a      woman  holding  an  interest  as  a      widow, mother, daughter etc.      (1) When  a pakka  tenant  who  has      inherited  an   interest   in   any      holding as  a widow,  mother, step-      mother, father’s  mother, unmarried      daughter  or  unmarried  sister  or      father’s father’s  mother  dies  or      marries, her  rights in the holding      shall  devolve   upon  the  nearest      surviving  heir  (such  heir  being      ascertained in  accordance with the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 4  

    provisions of  Section 82)  of  the      last male pakka tenant.      (2)  Nothing   in  sub-section  (1)      shall apply  to a person succeeding      to an interest in any holding under      the provisions of Section 84"           (emphasis supplied)      In view  of Section 83 whenever a widow has inherited a right of  a pakka  tenant, as in the present case the mother of the  respondents, if  remarries then  her  right  in  the holding shall devolve upon the nearest surviving heir of the last male  pakka tanant.  Section  82  of  the  Tenancy  Act prescribes the  mode of  devolution of the right when a male pakka tenant  dies but  in view  of Section  83 itself which refers to the said Section 82, for the purpose of devolution of the  interest in  the event a widow remarries, Section 82 shall  also   be  applicable  in  a  case  where  the  widow remarries. From  the classes  of heirs  indicated in Section 82, married  daughters have  been  described  as  Class  III heirs.      It is  an admitted  position that  in the present case, there is  no Class  I or  Class II heirs. As such, after the remarriage of  the mother,  because of  Section 83 read with Section 82,  the right  of pakka  tenancy shall be deemed to have  devolved  on  the  heirs  of  Khuman  Singh  i.e.  the respondent.      Learned counsel  appearing for  the appellant could not contest the  position that  in view  of Section 82 and 83 of the Tenancy  Act and because of the remarriage of the mother of respondents,  the right of pakka tenancy which the mother of  the   respondents  had   inherited,  devolved   on   the respondents. He,  however, contended that sub-section (2) of Section 4  of Succession Act shall not cover such devolution because the right of pakka tenant over the concerned land is not a tenancy right within the meaning of sub-section (2) of Section  4.   According  to  the  learned  counsel  for  the appellant,  a  pakka  tenant  is  a  ’Bhumiswami’.  However, Mr.Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, very fairly pointed  out that  this situation will be with effect from coming  into force  of the  Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code of  1959. Any  provision which  was enacted  after  the remarriage of the mother of the respondents in the year 1958 shall not  govern this  case. Admittedly  the mother  of the respondents remarried  in the  year 1958, before coming into force of  Madhya Pradesh  Land Revenue Code. On that date it will be  deemed that  she was  a pakka  tenant of  the lands which are  the subject  matter in  dispute. The  question of devolution of such right shall be governed by the provisions of the Tenancy Act aforesaid.      By mere  reference to  Section 54 (vii) which defines a pakka tenant.  Section 63  which requires  a pakka tenant to pay rent,  and Section  64, 65,  66(3) and  79 it  shall  be apparent that  a pakka tenant is also a tenant. He holds the land in  question on  the  statutory  terms  and  conditions prescribed in  the aforesaid Tenancy Act. In this background after the  death of the, male holder, Khuman Singh his pakka tenancy right  in the  lands in  question  devolved  on  the mother of  the respondents.  The same  will be  the position when the  mother of  the respondents  remarried. Because  of Section 82  it shall  be deemed that the pakka tenancy right of  the   mother  of   the  respondents   devolved  on   the respondents. Once  it is held that the devolution of tenancy right in  respect of  the holdings in question took place in the  year   1958  on   the  respondents  than  their  mother (Respondent No.3)  could not  have executed  the  registered

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 4  

sale deed in favour of the appellant on November 12, 1960.      Because of sub-section (2) of Section 4 of the Succession Act the provisions of Tenancy Act referred to above shall not be deemed to have been eclipsed or obliterated by the overriding effect of Succession Act. According to us, the trial court, the court of appeal and the High Court rightly came to the conclusion that in the year 1960 the respondent No.3, the mother of the respondents had no right, title or interest over the properties in question. Accordingly, the appeal fails and it is dismissed. No costs.