JAGPAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a revision by Jagpal Singh son of Horam Singh under Sec. 102 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and land Reforms Act against an appellate order passed in proceedings relating to assessment of rehabilitation grant.

(2.) Jagpal Singh along with his two brothers Satya Pal Singh and Dharam Pal Singh and his father Horam Singh together constituted a joint Hindu family owning zamindari properties. In 1938 a partition took place between the father and the sons. The father separated while the three sons remained joint. After the abolition of zamindari in 1952 question arose as to the awarding of rehabilitation grant to the father and the three sons. The learned Rehabilitation Grants officer treated the whole family as one unit with Horam Singh as the head and his three sons as the members. The learned Rehabilitation Grants Officer did not accept the partition as alleged by the parties. On appeal to the court of the District Judge a finding was recorded that there was partition in 1938 between the father and his sons and while the father separated the sons remained as joint Hindu family. The learned District Judge modified the order of the Rehabilitation Grants Officer and directed that for purposes of rehabilitation grant Horam Singh would be treated as one unit and the three brothers Satya Pal Singh, Jagpal Singh and Dharam Pal Singh together as one unit. It is against this order of the learned District Judge that the present petition in revision has been filed by one of the brothers.

(3.) Under Sec. 102 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act this court is empowered to call for the record to find out whether the decision of the appellate court was in accordance with law. It has been urged by the learned counsel for the applicant that in treating the three applicants as one unit though they constituted a joint Hindu family the court below has erred in law. Reliance has been placed on behalf of the applicant on the provisions of Sec 37 of the U.P.Z.A. and L. R. Act and it is urged that the case of the applicant fell within Cl. (b) of the Proviso to that Sec. and each of the brothers should have been treated as separate unit and not three of them together as one unit. I think there is much force in this contention of the learned counsel. Sec. 37 of the Act provides that for the purpose of assessment of re-habilitation grant every intermediary shall be treated as a separate unit. There is a proviso that in the case of a joint Hindu family all the members thereof shall be treated as separate units except when a father with his male lineal descendants in the male line of descent forms a joint family. Then as respects the joint family property the family would be deemed to be one unit where the father was alive on the date of vesting. It is clear, to my mind, that it is only in case where a joint Hindu family consists of a father and male lineal descendants that for purposes of assessment of rehabilitation grant the family shall be deemed to be one unit, otherwise the general rule will apply and if a joint Hindu family consists of only brothers without the father being a member of that joint Hindu family then all the members thereof shall be treated as separate unit. In fact, in the present case, on the date of vesting there was no joint Hindu family constituted by a father with his male lineal descendants in the male line. It were only the three applicants as brothers who constituted the Joint Hindu family. I have no doubt in my mind that the case of the applicants was governed by Cl. (b) of proviso to Sec. 37 of the Act and for the purpose of assessment of rehabilitation grant each of them is to be treated as separate unit.