1975 (2) TMI 131 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court: Suit and Appeal Abated Under U.P. Act

The Supreme Court held that the suit and appeal stand abated due to the operation of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The appeal was disposed ... Statutory abatement of proceedings - operation of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act - effect of Section 5(2)(a) - abatement of suit and appeal - rights before Consolidation AuthoritiesEffect of Section 5(2)(a) - abatement of suit and appeal - operation of notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act - statutory abatement of proceedings - Whether the pendency of the suit and the appeal before this Court abated on the issuance of a notification under Section 4 consequent upon the operation of Section 5(2)(a) of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as amended. - HELD THAT: - The Court applied the statutory scheme whereby a notification issued under Section 4 activates the abatement mechanism contained in Section 5(2)(a), causing suits and proceedings pending therefrom to stand abated. The judgment relied on the precedent of Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh as authority that appeals pending in this Court likewise abate under the same provision. The respondent conceded in light of the statute and the binding decision, and the Court therefore concluded that both the suit and the appeal must be treated as abated and that the parties may pursue their rights before the appropriate Consolidation Authorities. [Paras 1]Suit and appeal stand abated under Section 5(2)(a) following the Section 4 notification; parties may approach the Consolidation Authorities.Final Conclusion: In view of the statutory abatement triggered by the Section 4 notification and the applicable precedent, the Court disposed of the appeal as abated; parties to pursue remedies before the Consolidation Authorities and to bear their own costs. The Supreme Court held that the suit and appeal stand abated due to the operation of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953. The appeal was disposed of as abated, and parties will bear their own costs. (Case citation: 1975 (2) TMI 131 - Supreme Court)