2012 (1) TMI 363 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether a bhumidhar can impose a restriction on the legatee's right to transfer land under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951.
2. Applicability of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
3. Applicability of the doctrine of 'lis pendens'.

Summary:

Issue 1: Restriction on Legatee's Right to Transfer Land
The Supreme Court examined whether a bhumidhar with transferable rights under Section 169 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, can impose restrictions on the legatee's right to transfer land. The Court noted that Section 169(1) permits a bhumidhar to bequeath his holding by will, provided it is in writing, attested by two persons, and registered. The will executed by Umrao Singh, which created a restricted interest in favour of respondent No.1, was found to be permissible under Section 169(1). The Court held that the learned Single Judge of the High Court erred in interpreting the deletion of Section 169(2) and the applicability of Section 152(1) of the U.P. Act, which did not take away the right of a bhumidhar to bequeath his holding by will.

Issue 2: Applicability of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956
The Court referred to Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which declares that a female Hindu's property is her absolute property under Sub-section (1), but Sub-section (2) provides an exception for property acquired by way of a gift or will. The Court held that the restricted estate created by Umrao Singh's will in favor of respondent No.1 was permissible under Section 14(2). The Court cited precedents such as Navneet Lal Vs Gokul and others and Amar Singh Vs. Assistant Director of Consolidation, which supported the view that a life estate created by a will remains restricted under Section 14(2).

Issue 3: Applicability of Doctrine of 'Lis Pendens'
The Court examined the applicability of the doctrine of 'lis pendens' under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. The doctrine maintains the status quo of the property during litigation. The Court noted that the sale executed by respondent No.1 in favor of Smt. Poonam Rajput occurred when the first suit and appeal had been dismissed, but within the limitation period for filing a second appeal. The Court held that the sale was subject to the principle of 'lis pendens' as the second appeal was filed within the period of limitation, following the dicta in Krishanaji Pandharinath Vs. Anusayabai.

Conclusion:
(i) The judgments by the Civil Judge, Additional District Judge, and the High Court were set aside. The appellant was granted a declaration that respondent No.1 had no right to sell the disputed parcel of land.

(ii) The second suit filed by the appellant for setting aside the sale deed to Smt. Poonam Rajput, which was dismissed for non-prosecution, was not under challenge before the Supreme Court. The legal representatives of the appellant could apply to the relevant court for appropriate orders.

(iii) The Civil Appeal and I.A. Nos. 3 and 4 of 2010 were disposed of accordingly, with parties bearing their own costs.