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

PETITIONER: VISHWANATH (DEAD) BY LR.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: CHANDRA BHAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT13/12/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 AIR  919            1996 SCC  (1) 710  JT 1995 (9)   438        1996 SCALE  (1)2

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      The only  question in  this appeal  is whether the High Court in  its order dated 12.1.1976 made in Civil Misc. Writ No.7483/71 is  correct in law. The admitted position is that one Hanuman  Singh,  the  brother  in  law  of  Gulab  Singh (sister’s husband), as a guardian had executed a mortgage of the lands  in plot Nos.120, 122, 145/1 and 145/2 situated in village Kanjauli Uparhar and village Janjauli Kachhar, Tappa Chaurasi, P.P.  Khairagarh, District  Allahabad in favour of the respondent.  After the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,  1950 (for  short,‘the Act’)  was brought  into force with  effect from  26.1.1951. The  appellant laid  the suit under  Section 209  of the  Act for  ejectment  of  the respondent. All  the courts  including the  Board of Revenue concurrently held,  which was also upheld by the High Court, that Hanuman  Singh is  neither a  natural  guardian  nor  a property guardian  appointed to  manage the  estate  of  the minor  Gulab  Singh.  Therefore,  the  mortgage  is  a  void mortgage.      The respondent  contended that  he  had  perfected  his title by  adverse possession.  That contention was rejected. He also  contended that  he became  an ‘asami’ under the Act and thereby  he is not liable to be ejected. That contention too was  rejected. When he filed the writ petition, the High Court, for  the first  time, held  that since the respondent came into  possession of the aforesaid lands in his title as a mortgage,  until a suit for redemption of the mortgage and eviction of  the respondent is filed in the civil court, the proceedings Section  209 of  the Act  is  not  maintainable. Therefore, the  learned Judge allowed the writ petition with the above  order and  set aside the orders passed by all the tribunals referred  to hereinbefore.  Thus, this  appeal  by special leave.      The  only   question  is  whether  the  tribunals  have jurisdiction to  have the respondent ejected from the lands.

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

This Court in Rana Sheo Ambar Singh vs. Allahabad Bank Ltd., Allahabad [(1962) 2 SCR 441] had held that after the Act has come into  force, the  mortgage stood  extinguished and  the bhumidari rights  acquired under  the Act cannot be burdened with any  liability to  redeem the  mortgage debt  which was statutorily extinguished  creating  an  encumbrance  on  the land. It was held:       "...that  the  intention  of  the  U.P.      Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act      was to  vest the  proprietary rights  in      the Sir and Khudkast land and grove land      in the  Estate by  virtue of  s.6(a) (i)      and resettle  it on the intermediary not      as compensation  but by  virtue  of  his      cultivatory    possession    of    lands      comprised therein  and on  a new  tenure      and confer  upon the  intermediary a new      and special right of Bhumidari, which he      never had  before, by  s.18 of  the Act.      The proprietary  rights in Sir, Khudkast      land and grove land which were mortgaged      were  extinguished,  and  the  Bhumidari      right which  was altogether  a new right      could not  be considered  to be included      under the  mortgage. The mortgagee could      only  enforce  his  rights  against  the      mortgagor in  the manner  as provided by      s.6(h) of  the Act read with s.73 of the      Transfer of  Property Act and follow the      compensation money;  and so  far as  the      Sir Khudkast  land and  grove land  were      concerned,  he  could  not  enforce  his      rights under the mortgage by the sale of      Bhumidari rights  created in  favour  of      the  mortgagor   against   them   as   a      substituted security."      As a  consequence the  liability to redeem the mortgage having been  statutorily extinguished and the mortgage being void, the  appellant is  not obliged  to  file  a  suit  for redemption of the mortgage. The question then is whether the proceedings in  the courts  below is  validly instituted and the courts have jurisdiction to order ejectment. Section 209 of the Act envisages that:      "209.  Ejectment  of  persons  occupying      land  without   title.---(1)  A   person      taking or  retaining possession  of land      otherwise than  in accordance  with  the      provisions of the law for the time being      in force,  and ---  (a) where  the  land      forms part  of the holding of a bhumidar      or asami  without the  consent  of  such      bhumidar, or  asami; (b)  where the land      does not  form part  of the holding of a      bhumidar or asami without the consent of      the  Gaon   Sabha  shall  be  liable  to      ejectment on the suit in, cases referred      to in  clause (a)  above of the bhumidar      or  asami   concerned,  and   in   cases      referred to  in clause (b) above, of the      Gaon Sabha  and shall  also be liable to      pay damages."      It, therefore,  postulates  that  a  person  taking  or retaining possession  of land  otherwise than  in accordance with the  provisions of the law for the time being in force, where the  land forms  part of  the holding  of  a  bhumidar

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

without his consent, shall be liable to be ejected, in cases referred to  in clauses  referred to above and shall also be liable to pay damages.      Sub-section (1)  of Section  331 of  the Act postulates that:      "331. Cognizance  of suits,  etc.  under      this Act.---  (1) Except  as provided by      or under  this Act no court other than a      court mentioned  in column 4 of Schedule      II   shall,   notwithstanding   anything      contained in  the Civil  procedure Code,      1908 (V of 1908), take cognizance of any      suit,   application,    or   proceedings      mentioned in  column 3  thereof or  of a      suit, application  or proceedings  based      on a cause of action in respect of which      any relief could be obtained by means of      any such suit or application."      The Court  constituted under  the  Act,  therefore,  is empowered to  take cognizance  of the  suits under  the Act, despite the  provisions contained in Section 9 CPC. In other words,  the   jurisdiction  of   the  civil  court  to  take cognizance of the cause of action under Section 9 of the CPC stands excluded and the courts constituted under the Act get exclusive jurisdiction  to take cognizance and deal with the matters referred  to under the Act, since Section 209 of the Act expressly  referred to  a  person  taking  or  retaining possession of  land  from  a  bhumidhar  otherwise  than  in accordance with  the provisions of law. Any other person who has taken  possession of  the land  without his  consent  is liable to be ejected. Schedule II of the Act clearly mention in item  24 that  cognizance could  be taken  in respect  of Section 209  and the  competent court has been enumerated in the Schedule  as  Assistant  Collector.  So,  the  Assistant Collector had jurisdiction to take cognizance and he ordered ejectment of  the respondent  which was upheld on appeal and revision by the Board of Revenue.      Though the  learned counsel for the appellant sought to rely  on  Section  331(1)  (a)  which  enjoins  to  take  an objection at  the earliest  and precludes  the respondent to raise  the  issue  of  jurisdiction  of  the  court  at  any subsequent stage of the proceedings, it is not necessary for us to  deal at  length with  that contention.  Suffice it to state  that   under  Section   209,  the   trial  court  has jurisdiction, as  referred to  earlier, to order eviction of the respondent and it was upheld by all the courts.      The appeal  is accordingly  allowed. The  order of  the High Court  is set  aside and  that of  the tribunals  below under the  Act stand  restored. But,  in the  circumstances, there shall be no order as to costs.