Statutory bar on recognising transfer is not voidness; transferee could continue suit after deletion of the bar.

A statutory bar on recognition of a transfer is not the same as a declaration that the transfer is void: under section 23(1)(b) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, a transfer made after the specified date remained valid inter partes, but could not be recognised for purposes of the Act while the bar operated. Once the clause was deleted, the transferee could enforce the statutory incidents of ownership, and the amendment's limited retrospective effect did not prevent continuation of the eviction suit after the transferor withdrew. The suit therefore did not fail for want of maintainability.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a transfer covered by clause (b) of section 23(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 was void from its inception or merely not recognisable for the purposes of the Act; (ii) whether the transferee could continue the eviction suit after the transferor withdrew from it, in view of the deletion of clause (b) and the deeming provision in the amendment legislation.

Issue (i): Whether a transfer covered by clause (b) of section 23(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 was void from its inception or merely not recognisable for the purposes of the Act.

Analysis: The statutory language drew a distinction between a void transaction and a transaction that exists but is not to be recognised. Clause (b) did not declare such transfers void; it barred recognition of transfers made after the specified date for all purposes under the Act and coupled that bar with a deeming provision that the estate continued to vest in the transferor. The scheme of sections 4, 18 and 23(1)(b), read with the contrasting use of express voiding language in other provisions, showed that the transfer remained valid inter partes, though its operation could not be recognised for statutory purposes while the bar subsisted.

Conclusion: The transfer was not void; it remained a valid transfer, though its recognition for purposes under the Act was barred while clause (b) remained in force.

Issue (ii): Whether the transferee could continue the eviction suit after the transferor withdrew from it, in view of the deletion of clause (b) and the deeming provision in the amendment legislation.

Analysis: While the bar under clause (b) existed, the transferee's rights as bhumidhar could not be recognised and the transferor had to remain on record as co-plaintiff. Once clause (b) was deleted by the 1954 amendment, the bar was removed prospectively, and the transferee could enforce her rights from that point. The later 1956 amendment gave retrospective effect only for the limited purpose of compensation and rehabilitation grant, but the removal of the bar was sufficient to permit continuation of the suit by the transferee after the transferor's withdrawal, which did not relate back to the institution of the suit.

Conclusion: The transferee could maintain the suit after the transferor's withdrawal, and the suit did not fail for want of maintainability.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the High Court's decree was set aside, and the suit was restored for decision according to law.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory bar against recognition of a transfer is not equivalent to a declaration that the transfer is void, and once that bar is removed the transferee may enforce the statutory incidents of ownership unless the statute expressly limits the retrospective effect of the amendment.

---