1967 (8) TMI 134 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Construction of clause (b) of section 23(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951.
2. Effect of deletion of clause (b) by section 6 of the U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1954 and section 3 of U.P. Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1956.
3. Validity of the sale deed dated June 14, 1952.
4. Rights of the appellant to maintain the suit after withdrawal by the Kapurthala Estate.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Construction of Clause (b) of Section 23(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951:
Clause (b) of section 23(1) stated that no transfer by way of sale or gift of any estate or part thereof made after July 7, 1949, shall be recognized for any purpose whatsoever, and the estate shall be deemed to continue to vest in the transferor. The Supreme Court clarified that this provision did not render such transfers void but merely barred their recognition for any purpose under the Act. The distinction between a transaction being void and one not recognized was emphasized, noting that the latter implies the transaction exists but is not acknowledged for certain purposes.

2. Effect of Deletion of Clause (b):
The deletion of clause (b) by the 1954 and 1956 Amendment Acts was analyzed. The 1954 deletion was prospective, meaning the bar against recognition was removed from October 10, 1954. The 1956 Amendment made this deletion retrospective for the purposes of compensation and rehabilitation grant. The Supreme Court held that the deletion allowed the transferee to enforce their rights from the date of deletion, thus removing the bar against recognition of the appellant's rights.

3. Validity of the Sale Deed Dated June 14, 1952:
The sale deed executed before the Act came into force was valid, and the appellant acquired all rights, title, and interest in the property. The Supreme Court noted that the sale was valid under the law as it stood before the Act's commencement and was not rendered void by the Act. The sale deed vested ownership in the appellant, subject to the tenant's rights under any prevailing tenancy laws.

4. Rights of the Appellant to Maintain the Suit After Withdrawal by the Kapurthala Estate:
The Supreme Court held that the appellant had the right to maintain the suit after the Kapurthala Estate's withdrawal due to the deletion of clause (b). Initially, the appellant's rights could not be recognized, necessitating the Kapurthala Estate's involvement. However, after the bar's removal in 1954, the appellant could maintain the suit independently. The Court dismissed the contention that the withdrawal should date back to the suit's inception, affirming that the appellant had the right to proceed with the suit post-deletion of the bar.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Division Bench's judgment and decree, and restored the suit for trial. The Trial Court was directed to proceed in accordance with the law, and the respondent was ordered to pay costs to the appellant throughout.