9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether bhumidari rights created under Section 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, can be sold in execution of the decree. 2. Whether the application dated September 20, 1952, for execution of the decree is barred by limitation. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Bhumidari Rights and Execution of Decree: The primary contention was whether the bhumidari rights created under Section 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (the Act), could be sold in execution of the decree. The appellant argued that the High Court's decision allowing the sale of bhumidari rights was incorrect. The mortgage deed from 1914 covered the proprietary rights in sixty-seven villages, which vested in the State under the Act. The respondent contended that bhumidari rights represented the proprietary rights mortgaged and could be sold as substituted security. The court examined the scheme of the Act, particularly Sections 4, 6, 9, and 18. Section 4 provided for the vesting of estates in the State, and Section 6 outlined the consequences, including the cessation of all intermediary rights. Section 9 created exceptions for wells, trees in abadi, and buildings, which continued to belong to the intermediary. However, Section 18 did not provide that sir and khudkashat land and grove land would continue to belong to the intermediary but instead deemed them settled with the intermediary as bhumidar, creating a new right. The court concluded that sir and khudkashat land and grove land vested in the State under Section 6(a)(i), and the bhumidari rights under Section 18 were new rights, not included in the original mortgage. Therefore, these new rights could not be sold in execution of the decree. The court also referred to Section 6(h) of the Act, which stated that claims or liabilities secured by a mortgage could only be enforced as provided in Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, i.e., by following the compensation money. Thus, the respondent could not enforce the mortgage by selling the bhumidari rights but could only follow the compensation money. 2. Limitation for Execution Application: The appellant argued that the application dated September 20, 1952, was a fresh application for execution and was barred by limitation as it was filed over 12 years after the amended decree. The High Court had rejected this contention, stating that the application was not fresh but a continuation of the previous execution application within the time allowed by law. However, as the appellant succeeded on the first point regarding the non-saleability of bhumidari rights, the court did not find it necessary to address the limitation issue. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the court directed that the execution of the decree by the respondent would not be levied against the bhumidari rights created under Section 18 of the Act. The appellant was awarded costs for the proceedings in the Supreme Court and the High Court, with the costs of the execution court at its discretion.
|
