http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 11

CASE NO.:

Appeal (civil) 865 of 1984

PETITIONER:

Thakur Prasad (Dead) Through L.Rs.

RESPONDENT:

Raj Karan (Dead) By L.Rs. & Ors.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/03/2003

BENCH:

Syed Shah Mohammed Quadri & Arijit Pasayat

JUDGMENT:

J U D G M E N T

W I T H

CIVIL APPEAL NOS.866-868 OF 1984

SYED SHAH MOHAMMED QUADRI, J.

These appeals from various judgments and orders

of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad arise out of

the same factual matrix and raise a common question of

law viz., how are the rights of the mortgagors and the

mortgagees of the suit land affected by the provisions of

the U.P.Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act?

The search for the answer to the question takes us

back a century and a quarter and obliges us to examine

the nature of the tenure under different Acts. The

undisputed facts giving rise to the above question lie in a

narrow compass. The object of controversy is certain

plots of land in village Chaura Kalan, Taluka Konrh,

Pargana Bhadohi, District Varanasi of the State of U.P.

(hereinafter referred to in this judgment as, 'the suit

land'). In 1923 one Ram Nath Singh, who was said to be

sub-proprietor, granted the suit land as 'Krishnarpan' to

one Prayag Dutt Tiwari who passed away in 1947 leaving

behind him his L.Rs. Respondent Nos.5 to 10, who

(hereinafter referred to as 'the mortgagors') executed

usufructuary mortgage in favour of Thakur Prasad and

Shitla Prasad (Appellants in Civil Appeal Nos.865-866 of

1984 - hereinafter referred to as 'the mortgagees') on

November 3, 1947. The mortgagors sold the suit land in

different bits. They sold 1/6th share in favour of the

mortgagees and 1/6th share to Jadunath (respondent in

Civil Appeal No.866 of 1984). The remaining 2/3rd share

in the suit land was sold under two sale deeds in favour

of Raj Karan (appellant in Civil Appeal No.868 of 1984).

On October 7, 1960, Raj Karan, who had entered into

shoes of the mortgagors (hereinafter referred to as such in

this judgment) filed the suit, out of which these appeals

arose, for ejectment of Thakur Prasad and Shitla Prasad

(mortgagees) by depositing the mortgage money. The

suit could not proceed due to the issuance of Notification

of consolidation in the said village. The case was,

however, tried under Section 9 of the U.P.Consolidation

of Holdings Act by the Consolidation Officer who

dismissed the suit. On appeal by Raj Karan, the

Settlement Officer decreed the suit on August 12, 1965.

The mortgagees filed revision before the Deputy Director

of Consolidation who allowed the revision petition and

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 11

restored the order of the Settlement Officer

(Consolidation) on December 21, 1965. The said order

was impugned in writ petitions before the High Court of

Judicature at Allahabad by different parties. From the

judgments and orders of the High Court the above

appeals came to be filed in this Court by special leave.

Mr.E.C.Agarwala, the learned counsel appearing

for the appellants - mortgagees contended as follows: the

Deputy Director of Consolidation found that the suit land

was donated by the sub-proprietor, Ram Nath Singh, in

favour of Prayag Dutt Tiwari which was not disturbed by

the Maharaja of Banaras after purchasing the village;

Prayag Dutt Tiwari and his successors continued in

possession for more than fifty years and thus acquired the

status of an owner under Section 158 of the

N.W.Provinces Tenancy Act of 1901 (later termed as the

Agra Tenancy Act - for short, 'the Agra Act'); under

Section 6 of the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and

Land Reforms Act, 1950 (for short, 'the Z.A.Act'), the

rights of a mortgagor had come to an end and he became

entitled to recover the mortgage amount as a simple

mortgagee; however, Section 14(2) conferred the right of

ownership/bhumidar on such a mortgagor who held land

as 'Sir' or under 'Khudkasht' on the date of the mortgage

but the suit land was not so held and some other

mortgagees were in possession so it could not have been

under the Khudkasht of the mortgagors on the relevant

date as such their right got extinguished; the mortgagees

would have become hereditary tenant, had they deposited

five times the rent but they failed to do so and therefore

Gaon Sabha became entitled to eject them under Section

209 within three years from the date of the vesting in

view of Section 210 of the Z.A.Act and Rule 338 of the

U.P.Zamindari Rules read with Appendix III (Item 30)

but no suit was brought by Gaon Sabha till date and so

they had become sirdar or asami and would be deemed to

be a tenant from year to year; even assuming the

mortgagors become bhumidar, they could not evict the

mortgagees after the limitation of three years as they

perfected their title by adverse possession; in the written

submission it is added that the mortgagors, not having

acquired the right under Section 14(2)(a), had no right to

bring the suit for eviction.

Mr.V.K.S.Chaudhary, the learned senior counsel

appearing for the mortgagors, argued that: in the

Namanzuri village, the mortgagors could not claim any

right under Section 158 of the Agra Act; by the 1954

Notification the Z.A.Act was applied to the suit land

village duly deleting Sections 4 to 112 thereof the

mortgagees were entitled only to mortgage money which

was already deposited in the court; even in the sale deed

obtained by mortgagees the position of the mortgagors as

bhumidars was accepted which could not be permitted to

be denied now; the mortgagors became bhumidars under

Section 130 and under Section 133 of the Z.A.Act the

mortgagees became asamis so the suit for ejectment of

the mortgagees was required to be decreed; Raj Karan

and others were given possession of the suit land by the

Consolidation Officer accepting them as bhumidars and

the mortgagees' possession was confined only to the 1/6th

share which they had purchased; they could not deprive

the mortgagors of their land.

It is a common ground that the suit land formed

part of erstwhile Banaras State before its merger in the

State of U.P. on January 26, 1950. The Maharaja of

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 11

Banaras was the absolute owner of the Banaras State

which, it was stated, was formed out of Banaras family

Domain in 1911-1912. In the Banaras State there were

two types of villages called (i) Manzuri villages and (ii)

Namanzuri villages. Where a village was granted by the

Maharaja to an intermediary, it was termed as 'Manzuri'

village; the other villages in respect of which no grant

was made by him were referred to as 'Namanzuri'

villages.

We have perused a copy of the English translation

of Dastur-e-Dehi (also known as 'Wajibularz') of village

Chaura Kalan, a 'Manzuri' village, which was auctioned

to the Government Taluka Konrh pargana Bhadohi

district Mirzapur, relating to year 1281 F. Section 1

thereof says that the village, Abad-2 is of 'Namanzuri'

category; in regard to which it was specified that the

owner and zamindar was Maharaja Sahab Bahadur,

Kashi Naresh and that the tenants of the village were

entitled to cultivate with a right to transfer their tenancy

in accordance with the custom of that locality with the

exception of a sub-tenant-shikimi asami. The Settlement

Officer on the basis of village record of 1281F (1873-74)

and settlement of 1230 Fasli (1911-12) found that the

village in which the suit land was situate, was a

Namanzuri village. We, therefore, proceed on that basis.

The Z.A.Act was enacted in 1950 but it was made

applicable to different areas of the State of U.P. in stages

- first by notification issued on June 30, 1953 (referred to

as 'the 1953 Notification') to certain areas of the State

and then on July 1, 1954 (referred to as, 'the 1954

Notification') to the estates owned by the State in those

areas. We shall now consider how the Notifications - the

1953 or the 1954 - would operate in regard to the suit

land village. First, we shall refer to the provisions of

Sections 1 and 2 of the Z.A.Act which are relevant here.

Section 1 deals with short title, extent and

commencement of the Act; it has three sub-sections.

Sub-section (1) of Section 1 speaks of the title of the

Z.A.Act and sub-section (2) excludes certain areas from

the operation of the Act but now we are not concerned

with those areas; sub-section (3) which is material reads

as under :

"It shall come into force at once except in

the areas mentioned in clauses (a) to (f) of

sub-section (1) of Section 2 where it shall,

subject to any exception or modification

under sub-section (1) of Section 2, come

into force on such date as the State

Government may by notification in the

Gazette appoint, and different dates may be

appointed for different areas and different

provisions of this Act."

The substance of the above provisions is that the Act

shall come into force at once (January 26, 1951) and that

the State Government may apply the whole or any

provision of the Z.A. Act, subject to any exception or

modification as may be required to the areas mentioned

in clauses (a) to (f) of sub-section (1) of Section 2; it is

also clarified that different dates may be appointed for

different areas and different provisions of that Act.

Section 2 which speaks of modification of the Act

and its application to areas or estates specified

thereunder, may be quoted :

"Modification of the Act in its application

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 11

to certain areas - (1) The State Government

may by notification in the Gazette apply the

whole or any provision of this Act to any of

the following areas or estates subject to such

exceptions or modifications, not affecting

the substance, as the circumstances of the

case may require --

(a) xxx xxx xxx

(b) any estates or parts thereof owned by the

Central Government, State Government

or any local authority,

(c) xxx xxx xxx

(d) Pargana Kaswar Raja of Banaras

District,

(e) any area which, on the 30th day of

November, 1949, was included in --

(i) Banaras State as defined in the

Banaras State (Administration)

Order, 1949,

(ii)and (iii) xxx xxx xxx

*** *** ***

[(ee)] xxx xxx xxx

(f) xxx xxx xxx

Provided that, when this Act or its

provisions are so extended to such areas or

estates, with or without exceptions or

modifications, so much of any Act or

Regulation in force therein as is inconsistent

with this Act or the provisions so extended

or with any modifications made therein,

shall be deemed to have been repealed :

[Provided further that a notification

under this sub-section in respect of any

estate or part thereof owned by the Central

Government shall not issue except in

consultation with such Government]."

It is seen that under Section 2(1), the State

Government is empowered to apply the whole or any

provision of the Z.A.Act to the areas or estates

enumerated in clauses (a) to (f) thereof. With reference

to each of these clauses the footnotes specify the

amplitude of the application of the Z.A.Act. Here it will

be apt to read the relevant part of the 1953 Notification

by which the Z.A. Act was applied to former Banaras

State.

" PART A

Application of U.P.Act I of 1951

as amended by U.P. Act XVI of 1953

-----------------

NOTIFICATION

No.1830/I-A - 1060-53

Dated Lucknow, June 30, 1953.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 11

In exercise of the powers conferred by

sub-clause (i) of clause (e) of sub-section

(1) of Section 2 of the Uttar Pradesh

Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,

1950 (U.P.Act I of 1951), as amended by the

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land

Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1951 (U.P.Act

XVI of 1953), (hereinafter referred to as the

said Act), The Governor of Uttar Pradesh is

pleased to direct that the said Act shall

apply, subject to the modifications and

amendments specified in the schedule hereto

annexed to the territories of the former

Banaras State as defined in the Banaras

State (Administration) Order, 1949, except

the areas included on the date of this

notification in a municipality or notified

area, under the provisions of the U.P.

Municipalities Act, 1916, or a town area

under the provisions of the U.P.Town Areas

Act, 1914. The Governor is further pleased

to order under sub-section (3) of section 1 of

the said Act that this Act, shall come into

force in the aforesaid territories with effect

from the date of this notification.

SCHEDULE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sl. Section of

No. The Uttar

Pradesh

Zamindari Extent of modification or amendment

Abolition

and Land

Reforms

Act, 1950

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 3

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 In sub-section (1) of Section 2 omit clauses (a), (d),

(e) and (f).

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

By this Notification, the Z.A. Act, subject to the

modifications and amendments specified in the schedule,

was applied to the former Banaras State as defined in the

Banaras State (Administration) Order, 1949 except to the

areas mentioned therein which are not material here. A

perusal of the schedule shows that from the clauses of

sub-section (1) of Section 2, clauses (a), (d), (e) and (f)

are omitted. Consequently, the areas mentioned in

clauses (b) and (c) only remained in sub-section (1) of

Section 2 when the Z.A. Act was applied to the former

Banaras State. However, clause (c) is not relevant here.

It follows that after application of the Z.A. Act to former

Banaras State, it was left to the State Government to

extend the Z.A.Act to the area in clause (b) which

enumerates any estates or parts thereof owned by the

Central Government, State Government or any local

authority. The other modifications and amendments will

be referred to as and when necessary.

Here, it is necessary to refer to the relevant part of

the 1954 Notification :

"PART B

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 11

Application of U.P. Act I of 1951

As amended by U.P.Act XVI of 1953

To the

Government Estates without Intermediaries

NOTIFICATION

No.3170/I-A-1002-1954

Dated Lucknow, July 1, 1954

In continuation of notification

no.1830/I-A-1060-53, dated June 30, 1953,

and in exercise of the powers conferred by

clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 2

read with sub-section (2) of Section 1 of the

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land

Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act I of 1951) and

of all other powers conferred in this behalf

the Governor of Uttar Pradesh is pleased to

direct that the said Act shall, in its

application to the former Banaras State, be

subject in the case of estates owned by the

State Government and in which no

intermediary had any right, title or interest

on June 30, 1953, to the modifications and

amendments specified in the schedule hereto

annexed.

The Governor is further pleased to

direct that the said Act as amended and

modified shall come into force in the said

States with effect from July 1, 1954.

SCHEDULE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sl. Section of

No. The Uttar

Pradesh

Zamindari Extent of modification or amendment

Abolition

and Land

Reforms

Act, 1950

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 2 3

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 3 (1) For clause (1) the following shall be

substituted ;

"(1) 'appointed day' means date of

publication of this notification in the

official Gazette."

(2) Clauses (3), (5), (6), (12), (13), (15),

(17), (21), (23) and (24), shall be deleted.

(3) For the existing clause (28) the

following shall be substituted;

"(28) any reference to the U.P. Land

Revenue Act, 1901, shall be deemed to be

reference to the U.P.Land Revenue Act,

1901, as applicable to the former Banaras

State as defined in the Banaras State

(Administration) Order, 1949."

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 11

2 3-A After Section 3, the following shall be

added as a new Section 3-A:

"3-A. In this Act any reference to 'date of

vesting' in whatever form shall, unless the

context otherwise requires, be deemed to be

reference to the appointed day."

3 4-112 Sections 4 to 112 of Chapters II to VI in

Part I shall be deleted."

[Emphasis supplied]

This notification says that in its application to the

former Banaras State, the Z.A. Act shall be subject to

modifications and amendments specified in the schedule

thereto in the case of estates owned by the State

Government and in which no intermediary had any

interest on June 30, 1953 (date of the 1953 Notification).

The 1954 notification was in continuation of the 1953

notification in its application to the former Banaras State

in regard to the estates owned by the Central

Government, State Government or local authority. It will

not be quite correct to say that the issue is as to which

notification is applicable. The issue is whether Chaura

Kalan village was an estate owned by the State

Government and in which no intermediary had any

interest on June 30, 1953. After the purchase of interest

of Ram Nath Singh by Maharaja of Banaras subject to

the rent free grant of the suit land as 'Krishnarpan' in

favour of Prayag Dutt Tiwari it became a Namanzuri

village and was treated as such from 1320 F. After

merger of Banaras State in the State of U.P. the village

was an estate owned by the State Government with no

intermediary. In the result though on application of the

Z.A.Act to the former Banaras State by the 1953

Notification applied the provisions of Chapters II to VI

[Sections 4 to 112] were applicable, yet when by the

1954 Notification the Z.A.Act was extended to estates

owned by the Central Government, State Government or

local authority, the said provisions [Sections 4 to 112]

were deleted in the application of the Act. We are unable

to accept the contention of Mr.Agrawala that the suit land

was not of the State Government as it had been given in

Krishnarpan by Ram Nath Singh to Prayag Dutt Tiwari

not by the Maharaja but by the proprietor intermediary,

therefore, 1953 Notification would directly apply and

also the reasoning of the Deputy Director. We find

considerable force in the submission of Mr.Chaudhary

that the Z.A.Act was made applicable to the former

Banaras State by the 1953 Notification duly retaining

clauses (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 2; and as

the State was the sole proprietor of all the villages

comprised in the erstwhile Banaras State, (since the

former Banaras State was the proprietor of all the lands

in that State, except the private properties of the

Maharaja as described in the instrument of accession) the

Z.A.Act was extended to estates or parts thereof owned

by the State Government or any local authority by the

1954 Notification.

Admittedly, Prayag Dutt Tiwari was the original

rent-free grantee of the suit land but the grant was neither

at the pleasure of the grantor nor for the performance of

any specific service whether religious or secular. It was

otherwise also not a conditional grant. Therefore, the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 11

grant was not resumable under Section 154 of the Agra

Act. Section 158 of the Agra Act confers proprietory

rights on rent-free tenure holder. Section 158 reads as

follows :

"158. Land not liable to resumption under

Section 154 and which has been held rent-

free for fifty years and by two successors to

the original grantee, and land which was

acquired in perpetuity in consideration of the

loss or surrender of a right previously vested

in the grantee, or by a written instrument

and for a valuable consideration, shall be

deemed to be held in proprietory right, and

the court shall declare the holder of such

land to be the proprietor thereof, and to be

liable to pay the revenue thereon, and shall

determine the revenue payable by him."

A perusal of this section shows that to invoke the

said section the following conditions must be satisfied :

(1) the land shall not be resumable under Section 154; (2)

the land should have been held rent-free for fifty years

and by two successors to the original grantee; and (3) the

land should have been acquired in perpetuity in

consideration of the loss or surrender of a right

previously vested in the grantee or by a written

instrument and for valuable consideration. If the afore-

mentioned requirements are satisfied, the land shall be

deemed to be held in proprietory right and the holder of

the land was entitled to declaration from the court to that

effect and would also be liable to pay revenue thereon as

determined by the court. The expression 'rent-free

grantee' is defined in sub-section (8) of Section 4 of the

Agra Act. It is an inclusive definition and includes a

person who holds land on service tenure. Having regard

to above requirements of Section 158 of the Agra Act, in

the absence of any finding with regard to those

requirements, it is not possible to accept the contention of

the mortgagees that the mortgagors have become

proprietors of the suit land under Section 158 of the Agra

Act.

The position that would obtain on application of

the Z.A. Act to the Banaras State under the 1953

Notification has been discussed above. To the areas to

which the Z.A.Act was applied by the 1953 Notification,

Sections 4 to 112 thereof among others would apply.

Section 4 vests in the State all estates situate in Uttar

Pradesh as from the date to be specified by the State

Government. Section 6 speaks of consequences of such

vesting. Among them is the consequence that every

mortgage with possession existing on any estate or part

thereof on the date immediately preceding the date of

vesting was substituted by a simple mortgage, without

prejudice to the rights of the State Government under

Section 4. Section 14 deals with the rights of the

mortgagor and the mortgagee in an estate in possession of

a mortgagee with possession. Sub-section (1) of Section

14 provides that subject to the provisions of sub-section

(2), a mortgagee in possession of an estate or share therein

shall, with effect from the date of the vesting, cease to

have any right to hold or possess any such land in such

estate. In other words the right of the possessory

mortgagee to hold or possess the mortgaged land came to

an end. However, sub-section (2) says, where the

mortgaged land was in the personal cultivation of the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 11

mortgagee on the date immediately preceding the date of

vesting, the following two consequences will follow: (1)

if the mortgaged land was sir or khudkasht of the

mortgagor on the date of the mortgage, then it will be

treated as sir or khudkasht of the mortgagor or his legal

representative for purposes of working out the rights

under Section 18 thereof; and (2) if it was not sir or

khudkasht of the mortgagor on the date of the mortgage,

the mortgagee is conferred with a right (for purposes of

Section 19) to become the hereditary tenant thereof

provided he pays to the State Government, within six

months from the date of the vesting, an amount equal to

five times the rent calculated at hereditary rates applicable

on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting.

But if the mortgagee fails to pay the amount within the

afore-mentioned period, he loses all rights in the

mortgaged land and it shall be deemed to be a vacant land

and the mortgagee shall be liable to be ejected on the suit

of the Gaon Sabha or the Collector under Section 209 as if

he were a person in possession thereof otherwise than in

accordance with the provisions of this Act. This section

(Section 14) contains two explanations but they are not

relevant for the present discussion. In passing we may

note that Section 18 is a deeming provision. It says that

all lands, subject to the provisions of Sections 10, 15, 16

and 17 shall be deemed to be settled by the State

Government, inter alia, with an intermediary in possession

of such land as Sir or Khudkasht, who shall be entitled to

retain possession as a Bhumidar thereof. Section 19 is

also a deeming provision. It says that all land held or

deemed to have been held on the date immediately

preceding the date of vesting by any person as, inter alia, a

hereditary tenant shall except as provided in Section 18(2)

be entitled to take or retain possession as a sirdar thereof.

In the instant case, it has already been mentioned

above that the suit land was neither sir nor khudkasht of

the mortgagors on the date of the mortgage in question as

it was in possession of some other mortgagees (Ram

Khelawan and Ram Saran Singh) on that date. Under the

said provisions the mortgagors could not be said to have

acquired the Bhumidari rights. It may also be noted that

the mortgagees failed to avail of the benefit of Section 14

of the Z.A.Act as they did not deposit with the State

Government an amount equal to five times the rent within

six months from the date of vesting. Consequently, the

mortgagees who acquired no right under Section 14(2)

read with Section 19 became liable to be evicted either by

the Gaon Sabha or by the Collector under Section 209 of

the Z.A. Act. In the light of the above discussion, it is

difficult to accept the plea of the mortgagees that their

possession became adverse to that of the mortgagors. The

judgment of the Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court

in Balwant & Ors. vs. The Deputy Director of

Consolidation & Ors. [AIR 1975 Allahabad 295] was a

case of the mortgagor being a Bhumidar. It is, therefore,

not on the point.

However, the germane question is : did Section 14

apply to the suit land? Inasmuch as the village Chaura

Kalan, Taluka Konrh, Pargana Bhadohi, District

Varanasi of the State of U.P, was a Namanzuri village

and consequently the State Government became the

owner thereof on the merger of the Banaras State with

the U.P. State, the estate in the village was owned by the

State of U.P. It has already been noticed above that Z.A.

Act was made applicable to the estates owned by the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 10 of 11

State Government in the former Banaras State by the

1954 Notification. The Z.A. Act was applied to the

estate owned by the State Government after duly

deleting Sections 4 to 112 (Chapters II to VI in Part I),

consequently Section 14 would obviously be

inapplicable, therefore, the contention of the mortgagees

that the rights of the mortgagors were extinguished

under Section 14 and that the mortgagees became liable

to be evicted only on a suit instituted by the Gaon Sabha

or by the Collector cannot but be misconceived and an

untenable plea. On the facts of this case Sections 209

and 210 of the Act are not attracted.

It is important to note here that on application of

the Z.A.Act, Chapter VIII (Sections 129 to 230) applied

to the aforementioned area. Sections 130 and 133,

which are material for our purpose, read as under :

"130. Every person belonging to any of the

following classes shall be called a bhumidar

and shall have all the rights and be subject to

all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon

bhumidars by or under this Act; namely:-

(a) Every person who on the date

immediately preceding the appointed

day held land as -

(i) a fixed rate tenant or a rent-free

grantee -

..............

133. Every person belonging to any of the

following classes shall be called an asami

and shall have all the rights and be subject to

all the liabilities conferred or imposed upon

asamis by or under this Act; namely :-

(a) every person who on the date

immediately preceding the appointed

day held land as -

(i) *** *** ***

(ii) a mortgagee from a person

belonging to any of the classes

mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to

(iv) of clause (a) of Section 130 or

sub-clauses (i) to (iv) of clause (a)

of Section 131;

............"

From a perusal of the provisions, extracted above,

it is plain that a rent-free grantee became bhumidar

under sub-clause (i) of clause (a) of Section 130 and a

mortgagee from a bhumidar became asami under sub-

clause (ii) of clause (a) of Section 133 of the Z.A.Act.

Thus, in the instant case, the mortgagors became

bhumidars and the mortgagees became asamis. The title

of the mortgagors as bhumidars was also accepted by the

mortgagees when they purchased one sixth share in the

suit land from the mortgagors. In view of this position,

the mortgagors (bhumidars) were entitled to seek

ejection of the mortgagees (asamis) on depositing the

mortgage money under Section 200(c) of the Z.A.Act.

From the above discussion, it follows that the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 11 of 11

mortgagees are not entitled to claim any right either

under the Agra Tenancy Act or under the Z.A. Act. As

the mortgage money had been deposited by the

mortgagors, the mortgagees had no right to continue in

the possession of the mortgaged land. However, we

clarify that having purchased one sixth share of the

mortgagors, the mortgagees are entitled to remain in

possession of only one sixth share of the land. We have

already noted above that the Settlement Officer had

allotted one sixth share of the suit land to the mortgagees

and the possession of the rest of the suit land had been

given to the purchasers of the mortgaged land (suit land).

For the foregoing reasons the order under

challenge in Civil Appeal Nos.865 to 867 of 1984 does

not call for any interference by this Court. The Civil

Appeal Nos.865 of 1984, 866 of 1984 and 867 of 1984

are, therefore, dismissed.

In view of the dismissal of the above appeals, Civil

Appeal No.868 of 1984 filed by the Raj Karan deserves

to be allowed and it is accordingly allowed.

In the circumstances of the case, we direct the

parties to bear their own costs.