http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1579 of 2001

PETITIONER: Bindha Prasad & Ors

RESPONDENT: Bhan Datt (dead) By Lrs

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 10/12/2007

BENCH: Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT & P. SATHASIVAM

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1579 OF 2001

Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1.      Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of a learned  Single judge of the Allahabad High Court dismissing the  Second appeal filed by the appellant under Section 100 of the  Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short the ’CPC’).  The Second  appeal was by the defendant in a suit filed for cancellation of a  sale deed executed by one Raghoram in respect of Sirdari  plots.  The suit was decreed, the defendant’s first appeal was  dismissed.  The cross-objections of the plaintiff were also  dismissed by judgment and decree dated 5.1.1979. The second  appeal was directed against the judgment and decree dated  20.7.1978 and the judgment and decree dated 5.1.1979.

2.      Raghoram who was a patient of cancer, died in  September, 1979.  The disputed plots were Sirdari plots and  20 times rent was deposited to convert the Sirdari rights into  Bhumidhari rights.  The deposit was made on 2.8.1976 and on  the same day the sale deed was executed.

3.      According to the High Court the point to be considered  was whether by the deposit of 20 times rent, Raghoram  became Bhumidhar so as to execute the sale deed.  The High  Court held that till the death of Raghoram sometimes in  September, 1976, neither any judicial order was passed for  issuance of Sanad nor certificate of Sanad was issued in  favour of Raghoram.  It was accepted that grant of Sanad of  Bhumidhari rights relates back to the date of deposit of 20  times rent.  But in the present case since the tenant died  before any judicial order for issuance of Sanad could be  passed or before the Sanad could be issued, therefore, the  grant of Bhumidhari Sanad cannot relate back to the date of  deposit and would not entitle the tenant to execute the sale  deed in respect of the disputed Sirdari plots on the date of  deposit of 20 times rent.  Accordingly second appeal was  dismissed.

4.      Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the  view of the courts below and that of the High Court is clearly  contrary to the law.  Since on grant of Sanad, Bhumidhari  rights relates back to the date of deposit of 20 times rent the  mere fact that the tenant died before any order was passed in  that regard, the effect would be wiped out is not supportable  in law.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

5.      Learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand  supported the order.

6.      The question involved in the present case pertains to the  interpretation of Sections 134 and 137 of the U.P. Zamidari  Abolition and Lands Reforms Act, 1950 (in short the ’Act’). 7.      Sections 134 and 137 of the Act read as follows: "134(1) If a sirdar belonging to the class  mentioned in clause ( a ) of Section 131 pays  or offers to pay to the credit of the State  Government an amount equal to ten times the  land revenue payable or deemed to be payable  on the date of application for the land of which  he is the sirdar, he shall, upon an application  duly made in that behalf to an Assistant  Collector, be entitled, with effect from the date  on which the amount has been deposited, to a  declaration that he has acquired the rights  mentioned in Section 137 in respect of such  land...."  Section 137 insofar as it is relevant then stood  as follows:  "137(1) If the application has been duly made  and the Assistant Collector is satisfied that the  applicant is entitled to the declaration  mentioned in Section 134, he shall grant a  certificate to that effect.   (2) Upon the grant of the certificate under sub- section (1) the sirdar shall from the date  thereof\027  ( a ) become and be deemed to be a Bhumidhar  of the holding or the share in respect of which  the certificate has been granted, and    ( b )   *   *   *"  

8.      On the application being made and the stipulated times  of land revenue being paid, the sirdari becomes entitled "with  effect from the date on which the amount had been deposited"  to a declaration that he has acquired rights mentioned in  Section 137 of the Act.  The Section clearly specifies the date  with effect from which the rights would stand acquired i.e. the  date on which the amount contemplated by Section 134 is  deposited.  This clearly obliviates the uncertainty of the point  of time when the title is transferred by fixing the date as being  the date on which the amount is deposited. It would be  immaterial as to when the declaration under Section 137 is  made because that declaration must necessarily take effect  from the date when the amount is deposited.  Prior to the  amendment of sub section (2) of Section 137 of the Act the  position was that it is only the grant of certificate under sub  section (1) of Section 137 that the Sirdar from the date thereof  became or is to be deemed to be a Bhumidhar of the holding  or the share in respect of which the certificate has been  granted.  The amendment of sub section (2) of Section 137 by  Amendment Act 21 of 1962 with effect from 13.12.1962  brought  Section 137 (2) in line with Section 134.  The two  provisions read together clearly provide that as and when the  certificate under Section 137 is granted, it must relate back  and be effective from the date on which the amount referred to  in sub section (1) of Section 134 was deposited. In this context  the observation of this Court in para 9 of Deo Nandan and  Anr. v. Ram Saran and Ors. [2000 (3) SC 440] is worth being  quoted. So far relevant, it was observed as follows: "In our opinion, the said decisions run

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

counter to the plain language and meaning of  Sections 134 and 137 as they stood at the  relevant point of time. When a certificate is  issued under Section 137 it in fact recognises  the position as on the date when the  application was made and the payment  contemplated under Section 134(1) was  deposited. The certificate, In other words, will  have a retrospective effect and would relate  back to the date of the application. There was  nothing to prevent the revenue authorities  from allowing the application filed under  Section 134(1) on the day when it was  presented. The underlying intention of the  legislature, therefore, clearly is that as and  when the said application Is accepted and  order is passed under Section 137 it must  relate back to the date when the application  was filed. Such a situation is not unknown to  law. Mr. Prem Prasad Juneja, learned Counsel  for the appellants, as an analogy, has drawn  our attention to Order 22 Rule 6, C.P.C. which  provides that if any of the parties to a suit dies  after the hearing has been completed and  before the judgment is pronounced, the suit  would not abate. The doctrine of relation back  has been incorporated in Sections 134 and  137 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land  Reforms Act."

9.      In view of what has been stated above the appeal is  allowed and the judgment of the High Court affirming the  decisions of the trial court and the first appellate court is set  aside.  Cost made easy.