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

CASE NO.: Appeal (civil)  1307 of 2001

PETITIONER: Rajindera Singh (Dead) through Lrs. & others

RESPONDENT: Prem Mai and others

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/08/2007

BENCH: A.K. Mathur & Markandey Katju

JUDGMENT: JUDGMENT

O R D E R CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1307 OF 2001

1.      This appeal by special leave has been filed by Rajindra Singh, (since  deceased) whose legal representatives have been brought on record, against  the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad  dated 16th September, 1999 in Execution Second Appeal No. 870/1976  whereby the Second Appeal filed by the defendant-appellant has been  dismissed.

2.      The brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that Smt. Prem Mai and  Sudha Mai filed a suit for declaration and possession of the suit land in the  Trial Court being Suit No. 487/57.  The said suit was decreed against the  appellant herein on 21.9.63.  Aggrieved against that decree, the appellant- defendant preferred an appeal which was allowed on 16.4.64 and the  judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court was reversed by the First  Appellant Court.  The First Appellant Court was of the view that the  defendant-appellant was in cultivatory possession of the land in dispute  since before the commencement of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land  Reforms Act, 1951, and the suit was barred by time in view of Section 180  U.P. Tenancy Act, and hence the defendant had become a Sirdar.   

3.      Aggrieved against that, the respondent herein preferred Second  Appeal before the High Court which was also dismissed vide order dated  10.2.1971 and the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court was  affirmed.  It appears that during the pendency of the suit the Trial Court had  appointed a receiver (one Pitamber Singh) who took possession of the suit  land.  Also, Prem Mai and Sudha Mai purported to gift the suit land to the  D.A.V. College Trust.  After the suit was dismissed by the First Appellate  Court and the said dismissal was affirmed by the High Court, the question  arose about restitution of the land in question to the defendant-appellant  under Section 144 C.P.C.. However, by order dated 13.8.75 the restitution  application was rejected.  Aggrieved against that order, the matter was taken  up in first appeal which was dismissed on 2.4.76 and then to the High Court  in second appeal which was dismissed on 6.9.99.  All the courts having  dismissed the restitution proceedings, the appellant is before us by way of  the present appeal.   4.      We have heard learned counsel for the appellants and perused the  record.          5.      From the bare facts it is apparent that the suit against the appellant  was dismissed by the First Appellate Court which held that the appellant is  the Sirdar of the land in question, and that judgment has been affirmed by  the High Court on 10.2.71 in S.A. 215 of 1964, which order became final.    Hence in the ordinary course the appellant would be entitled to possession of

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

the suit land.  Therefore, we are of the opinion that the view taken by the  High Court by its order dated 6.9.99 and courts below cannot be sustained.

6.      However, we have been informed by learned counsel for the  respondent No. 2 that after these proceedings were over, the defendant- appellant had entered into an agreement to sell with respondent No. 2 for  sale of the suit land.  An application for bringing on record these subsequent  facts has been filed by respondent No. 2.  Since that agreement to sell was  not acted upon, respondent No. 2 has filed a civil suit being Suit No. 242 of  2002 before the Civil Judge, Dehradun for enforcement of the said  agreement, and the legal representatives of the appellant have also filed a  suit against respondent No. 2.  In the said proceedings an interim order of  status quo has been passed in April, 2002 by the Trial Court.  However, this  is not the subject matter before us and we do not wish to express any opinion  on this issue.  So far as the present case is concerned, we are of the opinion  that after the title of Rajindra Singh (since deceased) has been upheld by the  High Court on 10.2.71 he or his legal representatives would ordinarily have  been entitled to take possession of the suit land.  Therefore, the view taken  by the Allahabad High Court in the impugned order dated 6.9.99 cannot be  sustained and consequently the same is set aside.  However, in view of the  subsequent order of status quo passed in Suit No. 242 of 2002 for  enforcement of the agreement to sell pending between the parties, we do not  wish to express any opinion thereon.

7.      Insofar as the present proceedings are concerned, we set aside the  impugned judgment and order of the High Court and allow this appeal.  The  appellant would ordinarily have been entitled to possession of the suit land  but because of the interim order of status quo passed in Suit No. 242 of  2002, we direct that the possession of the suit land shall be subject to orders  passed in those proceedings.     

8.      The appeal is allowed.  No order as to costs. 9.      Before parting with this case we would like to express our anguish at  the delay in disposal of cases in our law courts.  The present case is a typical  illustration.  A suit filed in 1957 has rolled on for half a century.  It reminds  one of the case  Jarndyce v. Jarndyce in Charles Dickens’ novel ’Bleak  House’ which had rolled on for decades, consuming litigants and lawyers  alike.   

10.     We may quote a passage from ’Bleak House’ written in Dickens’  inimitable style :-

"Jarndyce and Jarndyce drones on.  This scarecrow of a  suit has, in course of time, become so complicated, that  no man alive knows what it means.  The parties to it  understand it least; but it has been observed that no two  Chancery lawyers can talk about it for five minutes,  without coming to a total disagreement as to all the  premises.  Innumerable children have been born into the  cause; innumerable young people have married into it;  innumerable old people have died out of it.  Scores of  persons have deliriously found themselves made parties  in Jarndyce and Jarndyce, without knowing how or why;  whole families have inherited legendry hatreds with the  suit.  The little plaintiff or defendant, who was promised  a new rocking-horse when Jarndyce and Jarndyce should  be settled, has grown up, possessed himself of a real  horse, and trotted away into the other world.  Fair wards  of court have faded into mothers and grandmothers; a  long procession of Chancellors has come in and gone out;  the legion of bills in the suit have been transformed into  mere bills of mortality; there are not three Jarndyces left  upon the earth perhaps, since old Tom  Jarndyce in  despair blew his brains out at a coffee house in Chancery  Lane; but Jarndyce and Jarndyce still drags its dreary

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

length before the court, perennially hopeless."

Is this not descriptive of the situation prevailing in India today ?

11.     People in India are simply disgusted with this state of affairs, and are  fast losing faith in the judiciary because of the inordinate delay in disposal of  cases.  We request the concerned authorities to do the needful in the matter  urgently to ensure speedy disposal of cases if the people’s faith in the  judiciary is to remain.