Decided on February 12,1965

AMBA PRASAD Respondents

Referred Judgements :-



S.N. Singh, J. - (1.)SHRI Sheo Raj Bahadur Mathur, Vakil of the court was appointed receiver in a case. After his having been appointed receiver he filed several suits for recovery of rent. A preliminary objection was raised by the Defendants that since the Plaintiff had not made a report as contemplated by Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act he could not maintain the suit by virtue of Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act and on this preliminary ground the suit was dismissed by the trial court.
(2.)ON appeal this decision of the trial court was upheld. The present appeal along with five connected appeals have been filed in this Court and the only point for determination in the circumstances of the present case is whether Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act is applicable to the case Section 34 of the UP Land Revenue Act lays down that:
Every person obtaining possession by succession or transfer of any property or other right in a mahal or part of a mahal, or the profits thereof, or in any specific area within, which is required to be recorded in the registers prescribed by Clause (a) or (d) of Section 32, shall report such succession or transfer to the Tahsildar of the tahsil in which the mahal or any part thereof is situated.

The other portions of the section are not very relevant for the purposes of this case. In order that Section 34 UPLR Act may be attracted it is necessary that there should be transference of possession by succession or transfer of any property or other right in a mahal or a part of a mahal or the profits thereof or in any specific area therein. Therefore, we have to see if in a case where a receiver had been appointed by a court, is there any transfer or succession? In my opinion there is neither succession nor transfer. When a receiver is appointed in a case by the court he only holds the property as an agent of the court for the benefit of the successful party. It cannot be said that there had been any transfer or succession. The learned Civil Judge has held that in a case of appointment of a receiver there is no transfer or succession and even on this finding he held that Section 34 UP Land Revenue Act was applicable to the facts of the case. In my opinion, the view taken by the courts below is erroneous. Section 34, UP Land Revenue Act cannot be held to be applicable in such a case. It has been emphasised times out of number that the courts should not lean towards technicality and try to do substantial justice between the parties and determine the dispute between the parties finally. Rules of procedure are made to sub serve justice and not to hamper it. We find that the learned Civil Judge has taken an entirely erroneous view and has relied on a case reported in, 1934 R.D. 430 (Moti Ram Nand Lal) (1) which is clearly distinguishable and does not apply to the facts of this case. In the above case an Official Receiver had been appointed by the insolvency court and under the Provincial Insolvency Act the property of the insolvent vested in the Receiver as such the learned members considered the vesting to be a transfer within the meaning of Section 34 UP Land Revenue Act. In the instant case there is no vesting of the estate and the Receiver manages the property as agent. If at all there is any case which may be helpful it is, 1951 RD117:, 1951 AWR (Rev) 118 (Collector Etawah v. Sagam Lal; (2) headnote A of which faithfully gives the ratio decidendi of the age and is as follows:

Under Section 12 of the Court of Wards Act, the Court of Wards merely assumes superintendence of the property of a proprietor, the estate does not vest in the Court of Wards. The Collector or Manager does not take possession by succession or transfer as contemplated by Section 34 of the Land Revenue Act. There is no provision that the assumption of charge of the estate should be recorded in the main columns of the registers prescribed by Clauses (a) to (d) of Section 32 of the Act. Therefore, the Collector or Manager who take possession of an estate under the Court of Wards Act is not bound to make the report required by Sub -section (1) of Section 34; and Sub -section (5) of the section is no bar to the Collector or the Manager to bring a suit in the Revenue Court. Section 59 of the Court of Wards Act specially empowers the Collector or the Manager to sue in a Revenue Court.

The learned Civil Judge has erred in distinguishing this case. The purpose of Section 31, as it appears to me, is that in order that the revenue records may be prepared properly and should be kept upto date a bar has been placed on persons who take that property by transfer or succession to inform the revenue authorities about the correct state of affairs. With that purpose in view it has been made obligatory on those persons to inform the Collector at the earliest opportunity. In a case where property has been temporarily entrusted to a receiver there is no question of transfer of ownership from one to another and it is only when the one recorded person ceases to leave an interest in the property and the same goes over to another that Section 34 UPLR Act is applicable. This is the only point decided by the courts below as such this case and connected cases have to be sent back to the trial court for deciding them on merits.

In view of the above the judgments and decrees of both the courts below are set aside and all the cases are sent back to the trial court for decision on merits. Costs here and hitherto will abide the result.


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