RANA SHEO AMBAR SINGH Vs. ALLAHABAD BANK LTD
LAWS(SC)-1961-4-60
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: ALLAHABAD)
Decided on
April 27,1961
RANA SHEO AMBAR SINGH
Appellant
VERSUS
ALLAHABAD BANK
Respondents
Cited Judgements :-
SIDHESHWAR PRASAD SINGH VS. RAM SAROOP SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1963-5-7] [REFERRED TO]VISHWANATHA DEAD VS. CHANDRA BHAN [LAWS(SC)-1995-12-87] [RELIED ON]
SUNITA MISHRA VS. BOARD OF REVENUE U. P. AT LUCKNOW [LAWS(ALL)-2024-1-81] [REFERRED TO]
TABASSUM GAZALA VS. AMIT GARG [LAWS(ALL)-2004-9-46] [REFERRED TO]
KASHIRAM VS. BHURA [LAWS(MPH)-1980-8-11] [REFERRED TO]
MAHARAJA PATESHWARI PRASAD SINGH VS. ADITYA PRASAD [LAWS(ALL)-1962-10-13] [REFERRED TO]
SHIAM SUNDER LAL VS. DURGA [LAWS(ALL)-1965-1-10] [REFERRED TO]
RAM AWALAMB VS. JATA SHANKAR [LAWS(ALL)-1968-9-12] [REFERRED TO]
BRUNDABAN CHANDRA DHIR VS. NATABAR CHANDRA DHIR [LAWS(ORI)-1963-11-2] [REFERRED TO]
BHAGAUTI PRASAD VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-2013-3-50] [REFERRED TO]
SHIV PRASAD VS. DY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION GHAZIPUR [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-65] [REFERRED TO]
BRIJ BIHARI DUBEY VS. CHANDRA SHEKHAR TEWARY [LAWS(PAT)-1974-9-11] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA DEVI ALIAS VIDYA VATI VS. PREM PRAKASH [LAWS(SC)-1995-5-54] [FOLLOWED]
KRISHNA PRASAD VS. GOURI KUMARI DEVI [LAWS(SC)-1962-3-12] [REFERRED]
S.K.M. MUHAMMED MUSTAFA MARAKAYAR VS. UDAYANACHIAMMAL AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1966-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
RAM WATI SRI BALBIR SINGH VS. MAHESH CHAND [LAWS(ALL)-2004-5-37] [REFERRED TO]
JAGDEO VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION ALLAHABAD [LAWS(ALL)-2006-7-168] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYA SAGAR VS. SUDESH KUMARI [LAWS(SC)-1975-10-1] [RELIED ON]
BABUPOOJARY VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MANGALORE [LAWS(KAR)-1995-4-16] [REFERRED TO]
BAIJNATH VS. LAKSHMI NARAIN [LAWS(ALL)-1970-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
KANHAIYA LAL AND OTHERS VS. DISTRICT DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION, PRATAPGARH AND OTHERS [LAWS(ALL)-1974-1-38] [REFERRED TO]
BALJIT SINGH VS. J I CUNNINGTON [LAWS(ALL)-1984-2-39] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PALIKA PARISHAD VS. ZAKIR HASAN [LAWS(ALL)-2011-5-38] [REFERRED ON]
CHANDRA AND ORS. VS. BUDHA AND ORS. [LAWS(ALL)-1985-5-78] [REFERRED TO]
CHERUKURU MUTHAYYA VS. GADDE GOPALAKRISHNAYYA [LAWS(APH)-1972-10-1] [REFERRED TO]
VIDYADBARA RAO VS. LALITBA DEVAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1972-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
SARBESWAR GHATAK VS. EXECUTOR, ESTATE OF ASWINI KUMAR DAS [LAWS(CAL)-1974-8-36] [REFERRED TO]
RANA SHEO AMBAR SINGH VS. ALLAHABAD BANK LIMITED [LAWS(SC)-1977-2-30] [FOLLOWED]
MEHARBAN SINGH VS. NARESH SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1969-10-51] [REFERRED TO]
CHANDO VS. BALDEV SINGH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-7-53] [REFERRED TO]
SUBODH GOPAL BOSE VS. MINES TRIBUNAL [LAWS(PAT)-1966-8-6] [REFERRED TO]
LACHHMAN SINGH VS. RAJA RAM SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1999-3-108] [REFERRED TO]
GUR CHARAN VS. RAM KHILAWAN [LAWS(ALL)-1980-6-5] [REFERRED TO]
NERAICHELVI VS. K RANGANATHAM [LAWS(MAD)-2008-10-97] [REFERRED TO]
NAGAR PALIKA ALIGARH VS. TIKA RAM CHARITABLE FAMILY TRUST [LAWS(ALL)-2004-12-154] [REFERRED TO]
GAON SABHA-TAPPAL TEHSIL KHAIR DISTRICT ALIGARH VS. SATYA DEO SHARMA [LAWS(ALL)-2004-3-1] [REFERREDE TO]
BARMESHWAR NATH PRASAD SINGH VS. BABU KUER RAI [LAWS(PAT)-1963-8-4] [REFERRED TO]
THE STATE OF MADRAS REPRESENTED BY THE COLLECTOR OF RAMANATHAPURAM AT MADURAI AND ANOTHER VS. RAMALINGASWAMIGAL MADAM, REPRESENTED BY N.P.K. PARAMASIVA THEVAR AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-1968-4-25] [REFERRED TO]
BALWANT VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION [LAWS(ALL)-1975-2-21] [REFERRED TO]
MADAN MOHAN GHOSH VS. SISHU BALA ATTA [LAWS(CAL)-1972-7-32] [REFERRED TO]
BHUDAN SINGH VS. NABI BUX [LAWS(SC)-1969-8-13] [REFERRED TO]
RAM PRAKASH VS. MOHAMMAD ALI KHAN DEAD [LAWS(SC)-1973-4-19] [RELIED ON]
NANDINI DEVI VS. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AYODHYA [LAWS(ALL)-2024-3-130] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court. The brief facts necessary for present purposes are these. The appellant's father Rana Umanath Bakshsingh was the Talukdar of Khajurgaon. On July 13, 1914, Rana Umanath Bakshsingh executed a simple mortgage in favour of the Allahabad Bank Limited (hereinafter called the respondent). The mortgage was for a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- and the property mortgaged consisted of sixty-seven villages. In may, 1924, the respondent filed a suit for the recovery of balance of the unpaid mortgage money by the sale of the mortgaged property. In January, 1925, a preliminary decree for the recovery of rupees four lacs and odd was passed, which was made final in July, 1926, and directed the sale of the mortgaged property, namely, the proprietary rights of Rana Umanath Bakshsingh in the sixty-seven villages. The followed execution applications with which we are nor concerned. In 1934, the U. P. Agriculturists' Relief Act was passed and thereupon an application was made by the judgment-debtor for the amendment of the decree under that Act. On October 19, 1936, the decree was amended under the provisions of that Act and thereafter the pending execution proceedings were dropped as instalments had been fixed. Eventually, the respondent applied for execution on May 25, 1940. Objection was taken to this application on the ground that it was barred by time; but this matter was decided against the judgment-debtor and thereafter the execution has been proceeding uptil now on this application.
(2.)On July 1, 1952, the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, No. 1 of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act), came into force. As a consequence of this enactment, the zamindari rights of the judgment-debtor were abolished and it was no longer possible to sell these rights in the sixty-seven villages. Consequently, on September 20, 1952, the respondent made an application that as the zamindari rights could not be sold, only such rights of the judgment-debtor as remained in him after the coming into force of the Act might be sold, namely, the rights in trees and well in abadi and buildings situate in various villages under sale. It was also prayed that the judgment-debtor's proprietary rights in grove land and sir and khudkashat land had been continued under S. 18 of the Act and these constituted substituted security in place of proprietary rights mortgaged with the respondent and they should also be sold. Finally it was prayed that compensation money payable to the judgment-debtor on the acquisition of the judgment-debtor on the acquisition of the proprietary rights by the State might be treated as substituted security.
(3.)The appellant objected to these applications on various grounds. The execution court held that the buildings, trees and wells situated in the abadi were liable to be sold in execution of the decree. It further held that the respondent was entitled to compensation amount granted by the State to the appellant inieu of zamindari rights as substituted security. Finally, it held that the bhumidari rights acquired by the appellants under S. 18 of the Act could also be sold in execution of the decree.
(2.)On July 1, 1952, the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, No. 1 of 1951 (hereinafter called the Act), came into force. As a consequence of this enactment, the zamindari rights of the judgment-debtor were abolished and it was no longer possible to sell these rights in the sixty-seven villages. Consequently, on September 20, 1952, the respondent made an application that as the zamindari rights could not be sold, only such rights of the judgment-debtor as remained in him after the coming into force of the Act might be sold, namely, the rights in trees and well in abadi and buildings situate in various villages under sale. It was also prayed that the judgment-debtor's proprietary rights in grove land and sir and khudkashat land had been continued under S. 18 of the Act and these constituted substituted security in place of proprietary rights mortgaged with the respondent and they should also be sold. Finally it was prayed that compensation money payable to the judgment-debtor on the acquisition of the judgment-debtor on the acquisition of the proprietary rights by the State might be treated as substituted security.
(3.)The appellant objected to these applications on various grounds. The execution court held that the buildings, trees and wells situated in the abadi were liable to be sold in execution of the decree. It further held that the respondent was entitled to compensation amount granted by the State to the appellant inieu of zamindari rights as substituted security. Finally, it held that the bhumidari rights acquired by the appellants under S. 18 of the Act could also be sold in execution of the decree.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.