9911796707
TMI Blog1967 (8) TMI 134X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... en statement. The Trial Court raised several issues amongst which Issue No. 7 was : Whether any rights have accrued in law in favour of plaintiff No. 2 under the sale deed dated 14th June 1952. The Trial Court tried that as a preliminary issue and held that the sale deed in favour of the appellant was void, that she did not acquire thereunder any interest in the said property, and in that view dismissed the suit. In appeal the learned Civil Judge, Mohanlalganj, held that the sale deed was not void and that after the deletion of clause (b) of section 23(1) by Amendment Act, XX of 1954 the appellant was entitled to maintain the suit despite withdrawal by the Kapurthala Estate. Consequently, he remanded the case to the Trial Court for deciding the rest of the issues. Against that order the respondent filed an appeal in the High Court contending once again that the said sale was void and conferred no right, title or interest in the appellant, and being void from its inception, remained void for all time and could not be taken into consideration in spit of the deletion of the said clause (b). The learned Single Judge, who heard that appeal dismissed it holding that the said sale was a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or an intermediary's grove on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting shall be deemed to be settled by the State Government with such intermediary who shall be entitled to take or retain possession as a bhumidhar hereof. Section 23(i) reads as follows : Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no transfer, by way of sale or gift of any estate or part thereof - (a) made on or after the first day of July, 1948 shall be recognised for the purpose of assessing the amount of rehabilitation grant payable to the intermediary; (b) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law, no transfer by way of sale or gift of any estate or part thereof made after the seventh day of July 1949, shall be recognised for any purpose whatsoever and the estate shall be deemed to continue to vest in the transferor. 5. Chapter III of the Act deals with compensation payable to the intermediary and its assessment and sections 73 and 74 in Chapter IV provide for rehabilitation grant payable to such intermediary. By section 6 of the Act XX of 1954 the legislature repealed clause (b) of section 23(1). In 1956, the legislature passed another Amendment Act XVIII of 1956 which by sec ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as the second plaintiff and the ban against recognition of the sale in her favour having been already removed before the withdrawal. 8. The Division Bench of the High Court disagreed with this view and held that the words any purpose in clause (b) were wide enough to include all purposes, that therefore the sale could not be recognised, that even if those words were given a restricted meaning as the learned Single Judge did, viz., for any purpose under the Act it made no different, for, no court could recognise the transfer for any purpose under the Act. Therefore, on July 1, 1952 when the Act came into force the question would arise as to who became the bhumidhar under the Act, the Kapurthala Estate or the appellant. Since clause (b) placed a ban against recognition of that transfer for any purpose under the Act it was the Kapurthala Estate which became the bhumidhar as a clause (b) provided that in the case of a transfer made after July 7, 1949 the estate was to be deemed to continue to vest in the transferor. Accordingly it was the Kapurthala Estate which became the bhumidhar and was entitled to the rights of a bhumidhar and not the appellant. This position continued till O ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is the same as one previously known; the mental process of identifying what has been known before; the action or fact of apprehending a thing as having a certain character belonging to a certain class. There is thus a clear distinction between a transaction being void and one though valid and existent which is not to be recognised or acknowledged. The legislature also appears to be fully aware of the distinction between a void transaction and one which is not to be recognised. In sections 24 and 166 the legislature has declared certain transactions therein set out void and of no effect as against clause (b) of section 23(1) where it provides only a bar against recognition. That being so it is impossible to say that the bar of recognition in clause (b) to a transfer made after July 7, 1949 means that such a transfer is void. The sale in favour of the appellant was therefore valid and did have the effect of conveying and vesting the ownership of the property in the appellant. 11. What then is the true effect of clause (b) ? The sale in favour of the appellant transferred all rights of ownership of Kapurthala Estate in the appellant and therefore the appellant became the Zamindar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion 23(1) is read as a whole it is clear that with respect to transfers made after July 7, 1949 the legislature wanted to lay down a bar against its recognition for all these purposes also and hence advisedly used the words for any purpose whatsoever , that is, for all purposes under the Act. The Division Bench therefore was not right in saying that clause (b) did not serve any useful purpose and that it did not appreciate why the legislature had enacted that clause. It is because this was the purpose of enacting clause (b) that the legislature also enacted a deeming provision under which the estate is to be deemed to continue to vest in the transferor. The impact of clause (b) on the transfer made after July 7, 1949 is that though the transferee by reason of such transfer becomes the intermediary and a bhumidhar under section 18, it bars recognition of his rights as such bhumidhar for any of the purposes of the Act whatsoever. Instead, as a result of the deeming provision in the clause, the transferor continues to have those rights notwithstanding the transfer. If the clause had rendered such a transfer void, an therefore non-existent, the transferor would have remained the owne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
