1976 (1) TMI 177 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Sections 172 and 174 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
2. Determination of the nature of the interest inherited by Smt. Menda.
3. Succession rights of Smt. Phoola versus Jit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Sections 172 and 174 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950:
The core issue in this case revolves around whether Section 172 or Section 174 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 applies to the succession of the property left by Smt. Menda. Section 172 pertains to the devolution of holdings inherited by certain female relatives, while Section 174 deals with the succession of holdings by women who have an independent interest.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the applicability of Section 172 depends on whether the interest in the holding was inherited. The court noted that the statute uses the words "the holding or the part shall devolve," indicating that if a widow has inherited an interest in the holding from her husband, it is the holding that devolves, not merely the widow's interest.

2. Determination of the Nature of the Interest Inherited by Smt. Menda:
The court examined the origin of Smt. Menda's title to determine if she inherited the interest from her husband, Ramadhin. The court found that Smt. Menda initially inherited the property from her husband, which was governed by the Oudh Rent Act, 1886. Under Section 48 of the Rent Act of 1886, the heir of a tenant was entitled to retain occupation of the holding for the unexpired portion of the tenancy period.

The court rejected the argument that the tenancy was not heritable at the time of Ramadhin's death. It held that the words "inherited an interest" in Section 172 must be interpreted broadly to include any form of interest, whether absolute, limited, or precarious. Therefore, Smt. Menda's occupation of the lands on her husband's death was by way of inheritance.

3. Succession Rights of Smt. Phoola versus Jit:
The court had to determine whether Smt. Phoola, the daughter, or Jit, the husband's brother's son, was the rightful heir to the property. The court found that since Smt. Menda inherited the property from her husband, the succession should be governed by Section 172, which applies the order of succession mentioned in Section 171.

Section 171 of the Abolition Act gives preference to the brother's son over the daughter. The court noted that the married daughter was excluded from inheritance before the 1954 amendment to the Abolition Act. Therefore, Jit, being the husband's brother's son, was the preferential heir.

The court criticized the Division Bench of the High Court for ignoring the precedent set by the earlier Division Bench decision in Mst. Jaini v. Ram Prasad, which held that the origin of the title should be considered to determine the applicability of Section 172. The court emphasized the importance of judicial precedent in achieving finality and homogeneity of judgments.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the Division Bench of the High Court erred in law by not applying Section 172 read with Section 171 of the Abolition Act. It held that Jit, as the husband's brother's son, was entitled to succeed to the estate left by Smt. Menda in preference to Smt. Phoola. The court restored the judgment of the learned Single Judge, which had favored Jit, and allowed the appeal.

Final Order:
The appeal was allowed, the judgment of the Division Bench was set aside, and the judgment of the learned Single Judge was restored. No order as to costs was made.