Decided on March 05,1968

MADHAVI Appellant
KANARAN Respondents


- (1.) Defendants 1 to 5 are the appellants in this Second Appeal which has been adjourned for hearing by a Division Bench by a learned single Judge of this Court.
(2.) The question for consideration is whether appellants 1, 5 and 8 (appellant 1 died and his legal representatives have been impleaded) are entitled to the benefit of the provisos to Clause vii of sub-s.(1) of S.3 of the Land Reforms Act, 1963. The Trial Court rejected the plea of the appellants in this regard and the matter does not seem to have been argued before or considered by the lower appellate court. We have permitted the point being agitated before us since this question, which is the main question, is a pure question of law and has been raised at the earliest time and urged before the Trial Court.
(3.) S.3 of the Land Reforms Act, 1963 exempts from the provisions of Chap.2 thereof in which the section occurs certain kinds of leases. It is sufficient for our purposes to notice the tenancies mentioned in clauses (v) and (vi) of sub-s.(1) of S.3. These relate respectively to tenancies in respect of land or of building or of both, created by mortgagees in possession or by persons deriving title from such mortgagees, and tenancies in respect of land or of buildings or of both created by persons having only life interest or other limited interest in the land or. in the buildings or in both, There are two provisos in clause (vi) and an explanation which is unnecessary to refer to. Thereafter leases of private forests are. exempted from the provisions of Chap.2 in clause (vii) of sub-s.(1) of S.3 and there is a proviso to clause (vii) which is the one that is pertinent, for the purpose of this case. We shall read it. "Provided that nothing in clauses (1) to (vii) shall affect the right of persons who were entitled to fixity of tenure immediately before the 21st January, 1961, under any law then in force;";

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.