Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 1965 (12) TMI SC This
Issues Involved:
1. Competency of the suit under the U.P. Agriculturist Relief Act after its repeal by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 2. Status of the appellants as Sirdars or asamis under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. 3. Jurisdiction of the Munsif to pass a decree for redemption and order ejectment after the repeal of the U.P. Agriculturist Relief Act. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Competency of the Suit: The primary issue was whether the suit filed under Section 12 of the U.P. Agriculturist Relief Act was competent after the Act was repealed by the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The court noted that the U.P. Agriculturist Relief Act was intended to provide benefits to agriculturists, including an easy remedy to redeem a mortgage. The suit was filed on May 27, 1952, before the repeal of the Agriculturist Relief Act by Act XVI of 1953, which came into force retrospectively from July 1, 1952. The court held that the repeal did not impair the right of the plaintiff to continue the suit under the old law, as per Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, which protects ongoing legal proceedings unless a different intention appears in the repealing statute. The court found no such intention in the Abolition Act or the amending Act XVI of 1953, and thus, the suit was competent. 2. Status of the Appellants: The appellants initially claimed to have become Sirdars by virtue of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act but later abandoned this claim. The court referred to Section 14(2)(a) of the Abolition Act, which excludes a mortgagee with possession from claiming Sirdar rights in respect of Sir or khudkasht land of the mortgagor. The appellants then claimed to be asamis under Section 21(1)(d) of the Abolition Act, which includes mortgagees in actual possession from certain classes of persons. The court examined these provisions and concluded that the appellants could not claim Sirdar status and their claim to be asamis was subject to the conditions laid out in the Abolition Act. 3. Jurisdiction of the Munsif: The appellants contended that after the repeal of the U.P. Agriculturist Relief Act, the jurisdiction to eject an asami lay with the Assistant Collector as per the Abolition Act. The court analyzed the relevant statutory provisions and amendments, noting that the Abolition Act and its amendments did not retrospectively transfer pending suits to the Assistant Collector. The court referred to Section 23 of the Amending Act XVIII of 1956, which explicitly stated that pending proceedings would continue to be heard and decided by the court where they were originally instituted. This provision reinforced the applicability of Section 6 of the U.P. General Clauses Act, ensuring that the Munsif retained jurisdiction over the suit filed before the repeal. Consequently, the proceedings before the Munsif were deemed to have been conducted with proper jurisdiction. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, confirming that the suit under the U.P. Agriculturist Relief Act was competent despite its repeal, the appellants did not attain Sirdar status, and the Munsif had jurisdiction to pass the decree for redemption and order ejectment. The appeal was dismissed with costs.
|