http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7  

PETITIONER: STATE OF U.P.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RAJ KUMAR RUKMANI RAMAN BRAHMA

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/09/1969

BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. BENCH: RAMASWAMI, V. SHAH, J.C. GROVER, A.N.

CITATION:  1971 AIR 1687            1970 SCR  (2) 355

ACT: U.P.  Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950  (1  of 1951), s. 23(1) and s. 79--A Gujaranama executed by Raja  of an  impartible estate  before  passing  of  Act  in   favour of   his  brother  whether a gift or sale within meaning  of s.  23(1)--Grantee whether entitled to rehabilitation  grant under s. 79.

HEADNOTE: The  Raja of an impartible Estate in U.P.  executed  certain Gujaranama  deeds  in 1949 including one in  favour  of  the respondent,  his younger brother.  After the U.P.  Zamindari and  Land  Reforms Act, 1950  (U.P. Act 1 of 1951)  came  in force   the  respondent  made  an  application  before   the Rehabilitation  Grants Officer under s. 79 of the Act.   The Rehabilitation  Grants Officer held that the respondent  was entitled to the Grant and the order was upheld by the higher courts  including the High Court. In appeal by the State  of U.P.  before  this  Court  it   was   contended   that   the Gujaranama executed by the Raja in favour of the  respondent was. a transfer by way of sale or gift within the meaning of s.  23(1 ) of the Act and therefore could not be  recognised for  purposes  of  assessing the  amount  of  Rehabilitation Grant.     HELD:  (i)  After the decision of the Privy  Council  in Shiba  Prasad  Singh’s  case it must be taken  to  be  well- settled  that  an  estate  which  is  impartible  by  custom cannot  be said to be the separate or exclusive property  of the  holder of the estate  If the holder has got the  estate as  an  ancestral  estate  and he has  succeeded  to  it  by primogeniture  it will be a part of the joint estate of  the undivided Hindu  family.  In  the  case Of an ordinary joint family  property the members o.f the family can  claim  four rights:  (1)  the  right  of partition;  (2)  the  right  to restrain  alienations by the head of the family  except  for necessity;  (3) the right of maintenance; and (4) the  right of  survivorship.  It is  obvious  from the very  nature  of the  property  which is impartible that the first  of  these rights  cannot  exist.  The  second is   also   incompatible with  the custom of impartibility.  The right of maintenance and  the right  of  survivorship, however, still remain  and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7  

it is by reference to these rights that the property, though impartible  has, in the eve of law, to be regarded as  joint family  property.   The right of survivorship,  unlike  mere spes   successionis  can  be  surrendered.   The  right   of maintenance to junior members out of an impartible estate is based  on  joint  ownership of the  junior  members  of  the family.  [361 H--362 D]     Shiha  Prasad Singh v. Rant  Prayag  Kumari   Devi,   59 I.A.  331, Rani Sartaj Kuari v. Deoraj Kuari, 15  I.A.   51, First  Pittapur  case. 26 I.A. 83, Collector of Gorakhpur v. Ram Sunder Mal, 61 I.A. 286 and Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Tej Bali Singh, 48 I.A. 195, applied.     Raja     Yarlagadda    Mallikarjuna    Prasad     Nayadu v.     Rain Yarlagadda Durga Prasad Nayadu, 27 I.A. 151  and Protap  Chandra  Deo v. Jagadish Chandra Deo, 54  I.A.  289, referred to.     (ii) In the present case there was the statement of  the Raja  in the Gujaranama deed that according to the  law  and custom of the estate the 356  eldest  son of the Raja becomes the owner of the estate  on the  death the earlier Raja and that the "younger sons  have right to  maintenance and they are given reasonable share of the  estate  in lieu of right  of maintenance.  In  view  of this admission of the Raja it was not possible to hold  that the transfer of the properties in the Gujaranama deed was  a transfer  by  way of gift.  It was also not a  sale  of  the properties  for  there is no money  consideration.   It  was manifest that the transaction was by way of a settlement  to the  respondent  by  the  Raja  in  lieu  of  the  right  of maintenance of the respondent which was obligatory upon  the holder   of      impartible  estate.   The  Gujaranama   was therefore  not hit by the pro  vision of s. 23 of  the  Act. [363 D-F] (iii)  The plea on behalf of the appellant that   the   case must   be remanded to the Rehabilitation Officer because  no issues  were  framed or evidence taken in the  case  had  no force because there were no questions of fact raised in  the written statement on which evidence could be  taken. [364 A]

JUDGMENT: CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 748 of 1966.     Appeal  by  special leave from the  judgment  and  order dated February 16, 1965 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil Revision No. 373 of 1963. B. Sen and O.P. Rana, for the appellant.     Yogeshwar Prasad,  Paras N. Tiwari,S.S. Khanduja  for B. Dutta, for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by     Ramaswami,  J.  This appeal is brought by special  leave from the judgment of the Allahabad High Court dated February 16,  1965 in Civil Revision No. 373 of 1963 which was  filed against  the  judgment  of  the  Additional   Civil   Judge, Mirzapur   dated December 4, ]962 in Revenue Appeal No.  417 of 1961.     The   respondent   made  an   application   before   the Rehabilitation  Grants officer, Mirzapur under s. 79 of  the U.P.  Zamindari  Abolition  and Land Reforms  Act,  1950  to obtain the determination and payment of rehabilitation grant to  him.  The case  of  the respondent was that he  was  the son  of  the late Raja Sharda Mahesh Narain  Singh  Shah  of Agori Barhar Raj, tehsil  Robertsganj  in Mirzapur district. Raja  Anand Brahma Shah who was a Malgujar of more than  Rs.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7  

l0,000  annually executed Gujaranama deeds in favour of  his younger  brothers  and Iris mother separately  in  the  year 1949.  By these deeds, certain villages were transferred  by the  raja to the Raj Kumar and the mother in lieu  of  their right of maintenance.  One of such Gujaranamas was  executed by Raja Anand Brahma Shah in favour of respondent, Raj Kumar Rukmini  Raman  Brahma who is one of his  younger  brothers. The document was executed on October 5, 1949 and  registered on January 357 18,  1950.   The application of the  respondent  before  the Rehabilitation Grants Officer was opposed ’by the appellant. The.  objection  of the appellant was that the  transfer  in favour  of  the respondent cannot be legally  recognised  in view of s. 23( 1 )(a) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951 ) (hereinafter  called the  Act)  for  the  purpose  of  assessing  the  amount  of rehabilitation  grant.  By his order dated January 28,  1961 the  rehabilitation Grants Officer held that the  respondent was   entitled  to  rehabilitation  grant.   The   appellant preferred an appeal against the order of the  Rehabilitation Grant Officer. The appeal was heard by the Additional  Civil Judge, Mirzapur, who rejected the objection of the appellant and   dismissed  the appeal.  The appellant took the  matter in  revision to the Allahabad High Court, but  the  Revision Application was dismissed on February 16, 1965.     It  is necessary at this stage to set out  the  relevant provisions of the Act: Section 3 (12):                   "In  this  Act, unless there  is  anything               repugnant in the subject or context--                   (12) ’Intermediary’ with reference to  any               estate  means a proprietor,  under-proprietor,               sub-proprietor, thekedar, permanent lessee  in               Avadh  and  permanent  tenure-holder  of  such               estate or part thereof."               Section 23:                   "Transfer by way of sale or gift not to be               recognised--                   (1 ) Notwithstanding anything contained in               ’any law, no transfer, by way of sale or gift,               of any estate or part thereof--                    (a)  made  on or after the first  day  of               July,  1948,  shall  be  recognised  for   the               purpose    of   assessing   the   amount    of               rehabilitation grant payable to               the intermediary;               (2)  Nothing in sub-section (1 )  shall  apply               to-               (a)  any sale made under order of a  court  in               execution of any decree or order for   payment               of money; or;                    (b) any sale or gift made in favour of  a               wakf, trust, endowment or society  established               wholly  for  charitable purposes,  unless  the               State   Government  in  any  particular   case               directs otherwise."               up(CI)/70--l1               358               Section 24(b)--                     "Any contract or agreement made  between               an intermediary and any person on or after the               first day of July, 1948, which has the effect,                             directly or indirectly,--               (a)

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7  

             (b) of entitling an intermediary to receive on               account  of  rehabilitation  grant  an  amount               higher  than  what  he  would,  but  for   the               contract  or agreement, be entitled  to  under               this Act               shall be made and is hereby declared null  and               void."               Section 73:                   "There   shall  be  paid  by   the   State               Government to every  intermediary  (other than               a  thekedar),   whose estate or  estates  have               been  acquired  under the provisions  of  this               Act,  a  rehabilitation grant  as  hereinafter               provided;                   Provided   that,   where   on   the   date               immediately preceding the date of vesting, the               aggregate   land   revenue  payable   by   the               intermediary  in  respect of all  his  estates               situate in the areas to which this Act applies               exceeded  rupees ten thousand, no  such  grant               shall be paid to him."     The  principal  question  involved  in  this  appeal  is whether  the Gujaranama deed dated October 5, 1949  executed by  Raja Anand Brahma Shah is a transfer by way of  sale  or gift  within  the  meaning of s. 23 (1 )  of  the  Act  ’and cannot,  there,fore, be recognised for purpose of  assessing the amount of Rehabilitation Grant. was argued on behalf  of the  appellant that on a true construction of  the  document the  transaction must be taken to be a gift of the  property by Raja Anand Brahma Shah to the respondent.  In our opinion there is no warrant for this argument.  The relevant portion of the Gujaranama deed dated October 5, 1949 states:                     "  ......  I Shri Raja Anand Brahma Shah               son  of Shri Raja Sharda Mahesh  Prasad  Singh               Shah  of  Agori  Barhar  Raj,  Rampur   Estate               Pargana  Barhar, Tehsil Robertsganj,  District               Mirzapur,  am  the proprietor  of  Angori  Raj               District  Mirzapur  which  is  an   impartible               estate.  That according to law and custom  the               eldest  son of the Raja becomes the  owner  of               the  estate on the death of the  earlier  Raja               and   the  younger  sons  have  a   fight   to               maintenance  and they are given  a  reasonable               share  of the estate in lieu of the  right  of               maintenance so as to enable them to pass their                             life in accordance with their               359               status.  The estate is under ’an obligation to               provide’  maintenance of this type.  Therefore               it  is  obligatory upon me also to  make  some               provision  for the maintenance of  my  younger               brother  Shri Rukmini Raman Brahma  by  giving               him some property.  He also desires that  some               maintenance   should  be  provided  for   him.               Therefore   I  out  of  my  sweet  will   ’and               willingness do hereby execute this document in               the terms following:                   1.  That  from  today’s date  I  give  the               property   detailed  below  to   my    younger               brother  Shri  Rukmini Raman Brahma in lieu of               his right of maintenance and I deliver to  him               the  proprietary possession of the  properties               aforementioned   which  include   all   rights               pertaining to Sir land, self cultivated  land,               water and forest rates, houses and  buildings,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7  

             shops, jungles, hills etc.                   2. That Shri Rukmini Raman Brahma and  his               male lineal descendants will as per the custom               of maintenance prevailing in my estate, remain               in  possession  of the  said  properties  from               generation  to generation and that in case  of               there being no male lineal descendants of  the               transferee  the property shall revert  to  the               holder of the jagir.                   3.  That  the  erstwhile  transferee   for               maintenance shall be competent to transfer the               property   detailed  below  subject   to   the               condition  that prior to sale it is and  shall               be  obligatory on his part to give  intimation               in this behalf to the erstwhile holder of  the               jagir  by means of a registered notice and  if               he be not willing to have the deed executed in               his  favour the property may be given in  sale               to. any  other person.  Otherwise the deed  of               sale  shall be invalid and shall be liable  to               pre-emption.                   4.  That  the transferee  for  maintenance               shall  pay  land revenue and  other  customary               dues  and taxes to the Government.  The  jagir               shall  not be responsible for the  payment  of               the same.                   5. That the transferee for maintenance may               get  his name entered in the  revenue  papers.               We shall have no. objection in this regard. Since  the  decision of the Privy Council  in  Shiba  Prasad Singh  v. Rani Prayag Kumari Devi(1) it must be taken to  be well  settled that an estate which is impartible  by  custom cannot  be said to be the separate or exclusive property  of the holder  of  the (1) 59 I.A. 331. 360 estate.   If the holder has got the estate as  an  ancestral estate  and he has succeeded to it by primogeniture it  will be a part of the joint estate of the undivided Hindu family. In the case of an ordinary joint family property the members of  the   family   can claim four rights:  (l)the  right  of partition; (2) the right to restrain alienations by the head of  the  family  except  for necessity;  (3)  the  right  of maintenance  and  (4)  the right  of  survivorship.  It   is obvious  from  the  very  nature  of  the  property which is impartible that the first of these rights cannot exist.  The second is also incompatible with-the custom of impartibility as  was laid down by the Privy Council in the case  of  Rant Sartaj  Kuari  v. Deoraj Kuari(1) and  the  First   Pittapur case(2).   The  right  of  maintenance  and  the  right   of survivorship., however, still remain and it is by  reference to these rights that the property, though impartible has, in the  eye  of law, to be regarded as joint  family  property. The  right  of  survivorship which can  be  claimed  by  the members  of the undivided family which owns  the  impartible estate   should   not  be  confused   with  a   mere    spes successionis.  Unlike  spes  succession  is,  the  right  of survivorship can be  renounced or surrendered.  It was  held by  the Judicial Committee in Collector of Gorakhpur v.  Ram Sunder Mal(3), the:  right  of maintenance to junior members out o,f an impartible estate was based on joint ownership of the  junior  members   of  the family.  In  that  case  Lord Blanesburgh after stating that the judgment of Lord  Dunedin in Baijnath Prasad Singh v. Tej Bali Singh(4) had definitely negatived  the  view  that the decisions of  the   Board  in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7  

Sartaj Kuari’s case ( 1 ) and the First Pittapur case ( 2  ) were   destructive  of  the  doctrine  that  an   impartible zamindari could be in any sense joint family property,  went on to observe:                      "One result is at length clearly  shown               to be that there is no reason  why the earlier               judgments of the Board should not be followed,               such  as  for instance  the  Challapalli  case               (Raja Yarlagadda Mallikariuna Prasad Nayadu v.               Raja  Yarlagadda Durga Prasad Nayadu(6)  which               regarded their right to maintenance,  however,               limited, out of an impartible estate as  being                             based  upon the joint ownership of  th e  junior               members  of the family, with the  result  that               these  members  holding  zamindari  lands  for               maintenance could still be considered as joint               in estate with the zamindar in possession."               Lord Blanesburgh said:                     "The  recent  decisions  of  the   Board               constitute  a further landmark in the judicial               exposition  of  the question ’at  issue  here.               While the power of the holder of               (1) 15 I.A. 51.           (2) 26 I.A. 83.               (3) 61 I.A. 286,          (4) 48 I.A. 195.               (5) 271.A. 151.               361               an impartible raj to dispose  of the  same  by               deed  (Sartaj Kuari’s case(1) or by will  (the               First Pittapur  case(") and Protap Chandra Deo               v. Jagadish Chandra Deo(3) remains  definitely               established,  the right of the  junior  branch               to  succeed by survivorship to the raj on  the               extinction of the senior branch has also  been               definitely and emphatically re-affirmed.   Nor               must  this right be whittled away.  It  cannot               be  regarded  as  merely  visionary."       As               pointed out in Baijnath Prasad Singh’s case(4)               when  before the Allahabad  High   Court   the               junior  members of a great zamindari  enjoy  a               high  degree of consideration, being known  as               babus, the different branches holding  babuana               grants  out of the zamindari. Their  enjoyment               of  these  grants  is  attributable  to  their               membership of the joint family, and until  the               decisions above referred to beginning in  1888               supervened,   they  had no reason  to  believe               that  their  rights of succession  were  being               imperilled  by  their  estrangement  from  the               zamindar in possession."     In  the  present case there is the statement   of   Raja Anand  Brahma Shah in the Gujaranama deed that according  to the law and custom of the estate, the eldest son of the Raja becomes the owner of the estate on the death of the  earlier Raja  and that the "younger sons have right  to  maintenance and  they  are  given reasonable share of the estate in lieu of right of m’aintenance". In view of this admission of Raja Anand  Brahma  Shah  it is not possible  to  hold  that  the transfer  of  the properties in the Gujaranama  deed  was  a transfer by way of gift.  It is also not possible to contend that  it was a sale of the properties for there is no  money consideration.   It is manifest that the transaction  is  by way of a settlement to the respondent by Raja Anand Brahm, a Shah  in lieu of the right of maintenance of the  respondent which  is obligatory upon the holder of  impartible  estate.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7  

In our opinion, the Gujaranama deed dated October 5, 1949 is not  hit  by  the  provision of s. 23 of  the  Act  and  the argument of the appellant on this aspect of the case must be rejected.     It  was contended on behalf of the appellant  that   the case  should  be  remanded to  the   Rehabilitation   Grants Officer   on account of certain  procedural  irregularities. It  was pointed out that the Rehabilitation  Grants  Officer did not follow the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code by treating  the  application under s. 79 as a plaint  and  the objection  of the State Government as a  written  statement. It was said that the Rehabilitation Grants Officer was bound to. frame proper issues and to take evidence of the parties (1) 15 I.A. 51. (2) 26 I.A. 83. (3) 54 I.A. 289. (4)481.A. 195. 362 on those issues as in the civil suit.  But no case has  been made out for remand because the appellant has not denied  in the written statement that there was the customary right  of maintenance  of  the junior members of the  family  of  Raja Anand  Brahma Shah. No disputed question of fact was  raised on behalf of the appellant before the Rehabilitation  Grants Officer, the award of the Rehabilitation Grants Officer  was challenged only on a question of law.     For  these  reasons we hold that this appeal  fails  and must be dismissed, with costs. G.C.                                 Appeal dismissed. 363