- (1.) This is an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution praying that the judgment of the Board of Revenue dated the 9th August, 1955, be quashed. The facts in brief, are as follows: The applicant, Smt. Beti, was the sir holder of certain sir plots and was also the exproprietary tenant of certain other plots. In the year 1946 she let out the sir and ex-proprietary plots to the opposite parties Nos. 2 to 8. The lease was for a period of five years and the term expired in 1951. On the 6th of June, 1951, before the expiry of the term the Petitioner executed a deed of gift of her property including the aforesaid plots in favour of one Maharaj singh and some other persons, who seem to be her relations. The donees applied for their names being mutated in place of the Petitioner. The Assistant Collector refused to give effect to the deed of gift so far as the sir and the exproprietary plots were concerned on the ground that the gift being a permanent alienation was contrary to the provisions of Section 24 of the U.P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act (No. XIV of 1940) and was consequently void. The name of the Petitioner continued to remain recorded in the revenue papers as before, namely as sirholder of certain plots and as exproprietary tenant of the other plots. The donees submitted to this decision of the Assistant Collector and did not appeal.
(2.) Then the Petitioner filed a suit Under Section 202 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act, which has given rise to these proceedings, in the court of the Asstt. Collector for ejectment of the opposite parties as asamis on the ground that she had become a bhumidhar of the plots, whereas the opposite parties had become asamis under the aforesaid Act. The Plaintiff withdrew the suit qua the plots of which she was an exproprietary tenant and confined the suit for the ejectment of the opposite parties from the sir plots alone.
(3.) The suit was dismissed by all the revenue courts, including the Board of Revenue. The view taken by the Board of Revenue was that since the Petitioner had executed a gift of the plots in dispute and though the gift was a permanent alienation, and did not take effect by virtue of Section 24 of the U.P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act, yet by virtue of Section 25 of the said Act it took effect as a mortgage, and that as such, the donees became mortgagee in possession and the Petitioner became an exproprietary tenant of the sir plots, and consequently she acquired sirdari rights Under Section 19 of the Z.A. and L.R. Act and became entitled to regain possession from the mortgagees; and that, therefore, she could not bring a suit for the ejectment of the asamis before she ejected the donees who had become mortgagees. Against this decision the Petitioner has come up to this Court and on her behalf, Mr. Pravin Chaturvedi has urged that the view of the law taken by the Board of Revenue is manifestly erroneous. He has urged that the deed of gift, being bad in law Under Section 24 of the U.P. Regulation of Agricultural Credit Act, became void and that Under Section 25 of the aforesaid Act it did not take effect as a mortgage because under that section a gift could not be deemed to have become a mortgage. He has urged that the words "permanent alienation" within the meaning of Section 25 of the Act could not be held to include a gift. He has further urged that in this view of the matter the Petitioner acquired bhumidhari rights and not sirdari rights in the plots in dispute and since the donees never came into possession of the plots the possession being with the opposite parties she was under no necessity to eject the mortgagees and was entitled to bring a suit for the ejectment of the opposite parties.;