2000 (7) TMI 973 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court upholds lower court decisions on Sirdari rights & jurisdiction, grants succession rights.

KALI PRASAD & ORS. Versus DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION & ORS.

The Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts. The appellants were not entitled to Sirdari rights under the ... - Issues:Nature of right under U.P. Zamindari Act, Jurisdiction of civil court, Succession rights, Retrospective effect of Amendment Act, Bar on jurisdiction of civil court, Legality of High Court judgment.Nature of right under U.P. Zamindari Act:The case involved a dispute regarding the nature of the rights held by the appellants under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act, 1950. The appellants were recorded as occupants of certain plots, and the question arose whether they had acquired Sirdari rights due to adverse possession. The Settlement Officer (Consolidation) found that the appellants were in adverse possession and entitled to Sirdari rights, which led to subsequent appeals and revision petitions. The Deputy Director (Consolidation) allowed the appeals of respondents, holding that the appellants were asamis and not entitled to Sirdari rights under the U.P. Land Reforms Act. The High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging this decision, leading to the civil appeal before the Supreme Court.Jurisdiction of civil court:The issue of jurisdiction of the civil court arose in the context of a civil suit filed by Ram Dulare, seeking declaration of bhumidari rights and ejectment of the appellants. The Trial Court decreed the suit, but the District Judge set aside the judgment, holding that the civil court had no jurisdiction over the matter. The High Court confirmed this decision, emphasizing that the civil court could not grant the relief of ejectment of asamis. The Supreme Court upheld this finding, stating that Section 209 of the U.P. Zamindari Act did not apply to eviction of asamis, and the appellants could not claim Sirdari rights based on adverse possession.Succession rights and retrospective effect of Amendment Act:The appellants argued that the sisters' sons of Bal Karan became heirs only after the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1958, and it could not have retrospective effect. However, the Division Bench of the High Court held that the Amendment Act was retrospective in nature, as per Section 1(2) of the Act. This provision deemed the Act to have come into force from July 1, 1952, thereby granting respondents succession rights to Bal Karan.Bar on jurisdiction of civil court:The appellants contended that the civil suit was barred under Section 331 of the U.P. Zamindari Act, and any finding by the civil court should not be considered in the Consolidation Act proceedings. The Supreme Court clarified that Section 331, read with Schedule II, only bars jurisdiction for specific reliefs mentioned in the schedule. The suits filed by Ram Dulare were for declaration of bhumidari rights and ejectment, falling under the barred categories for civil court jurisdiction. The finding of the civil court on jurisdictional facts was deemed binding, and the Supreme Court found no illegality in the High Court's judgment confirming the Deputy Director's decision.In conclusion, the Supreme Court dismissed the civil appeal, upholding the decisions of the lower courts regarding the nature of rights under the U.P. Zamindari Act, jurisdiction of civil court, succession rights, retrospective effect of the Amendment Act, and the bar on civil court jurisdiction as per Section 331.