1999 (4) TMI 577 - SC - Indian Laws

Preliminary decree passed by the trial court - allowing the plaintiffs claim by HC for redemption in respect of mortgaged houses and khudkasht land - Held that - Appeal dismissed. Not convenient to record that the High Court has decided the issue not in its proper perspective.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Right of the plaintiff-mortgagor to redeem mortgaged property.
2. Interpretation of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951.
3. Applicability of the doctrine of stare decisis.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Right of the plaintiff-mortgagor to redeem mortgaged property:
The appeal challenges the Madhya Pradesh High Court's order confirming the preliminary decree passed by the trial court, which allowed the plaintiffs' claim for redemption of mortgaged houses and khudkasht land. The defendant-mortgagee contested the plaintiff-mortgagor's right to redeem properties mortgaged before the enactment of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951. The trial court decreed the suit, affirming the plaintiff's entitlement to redeem the mortgage, a position upheld by the High Court.

2. Interpretation of the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951:
The Act was enacted to abolish the Zamindari system and vest proprietary rights in the State, with specific provisions for khudkasht land. Section 2c defines "Khudkasht land" as land cultivated by the Zamindar himself or through employees or hired laborers. Section 4(27) allows the Zamindar to remain in possession of khudkasht land recorded in the annual village papers before the date of vesting. The Court noted that the legislative intent was to protect khudkasht land and prevent the mortgagee from claiming a larger interest than that held prior to the Act. The possession of khudkasht land was to revert to the Zamindar by operation of law, preventing the mortgagee from upgrading their entitlement or status.

3. Applicability of the doctrine of stare decisis:
The Court emphasized the importance of the doctrine of stare decisis, which promotes legal certainty and stability by adhering to established precedents. The decision in Meharban Singh v. Naresh Singh (AIR 1971 SC 77) was cited, where it was held that the Zamindar is entitled to remain in possession of khudkasht land recorded before the date of vesting. The Court noted that the decision in Budha v. Amilal (1990) did not consider Meharban Singh's case and was based on the Rajasthan Zamindari and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959, which differs from the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act, 1951. The Court held that overturning the long-standing precedent set by Meharban Singh would create legal uncertainty and disturb settled transactions in Madhya Pradesh. The doctrine of stare decisis was invoked to maintain the consistency of the legal interpretation.

Conclusion:
The appeal was dismissed, and the High Court's decision was upheld, affirming the plaintiff-mortgagor's right to redeem the mortgaged property and emphasizing the importance of the doctrine of stare decisis in maintaining legal stability and certainty.