# RAMPRAKASH v. MOHAMMAD ALI KHAN (DEAD) THROUGH L.R'S

- **Citation:** [1973] 3 S.C.R. 893
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1973-04-04
- **Bench:** J. M. Shelat, Acting C.J
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/ramprakash-v-mohammad-ali-khan-dead-through-l-r-s-6575
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

S. N. DWIVEDI AND
Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.J
U. P. Zamindari AbolitiOfl and Land Reforms Act 19SO, s. 18(1}-
.Land held by an Intermediary as an Intermediary's grove 011 the date
immediately preceding the date of vesting deemed to be settled by th•
State Government with such intermediary-Eorlkr right• are extinguith.
ed-Res Judicat<>-No res judicata when issue in earlier decision w""
different.
In February 1946, H lea<:ed his share in a grove iJi Uttar Pradesh
to the appellant and sold to him the trees standing thereon. Similarly
A, a widow, leased her share and that of her minor children in the
grove and sold the standing trees to the· appellant. Subseqllllntly
the
proprietary right of some other co-sharers in the grove was sold to one
M. The appellal>t instituted a suit sometime in 1946 against M and
others for injunction and alternatively for possession over the
grove.
Sometime in 1947 M and others also instiu.ted a rival suit for caiu:ellation of the aforesaid leases on the contention that under s. 246 of · the
U. P. Tenancy Ac:t the executiOID of a lease by some of the cosharers
•only, was invalid. The trial coort dismissed the appellanfs suit
and
>decreed M's suit. The lower appellate court granted a decree in fuvour
of the appellant for ·joint possession over the share of H and A in the
grove land. It was held that the lea•e executed by A ao guardian of
the minors was invalid.
M filed two appeals in the Allahabad High
Court. Duritog the peodency of the appeals M died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The appeal filed by M ·in his
own suit was dismissed by a Single Judge of the
High Court. The
appeal filed by M in .the appellant's suit was heard by another single
Judge, and was allowed with respect to the lease of grove land and dis·
missed as regards the sale of the trees, It was held that ofter the
commencement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
the appellant had no subsisting interest in the land. The appellant was
granted special leave to appeal to this Court.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (i) As the grove in dispute was an intermediary's grove M
and others who were intermediaries on the relevant date
becJame
its
bhumidars. 1be lessee of an intermediary's grove land is· not an intermediary because he does not fall within the cletinitiOID of the
word
·'.interme~iary', _No oth~r provision of the Act gives him any kind of
mterest ID the rntermedrary's grove land. 1be appellant got no right in
:the grove land in dispute.
[895EJ
f!ana Sheo Ambar Singh v, Allal!Gbad Bank Ltd, Allahabad, {1962]
2 S.C.R. 441 and lamshed lahan Begam and others v. Lakhan Lal and
others, [1970] 2 S.C.R, 566, relied on.
(ii) Tiie dismissat of M's other appeal by the High Coun coo1d not
operate as rer judicata in the present appeal because the questions
at
issue in the two appeals were different. [8950]
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S.C.R.
C!v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1860 of
1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
Augmt 8, 1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal
]\;~_ ::350 of 1953.
IC. P. Gupta, for the appellant.
J.P. Gopal and Sobhag Mal Jain, for respondents Nos. 1 to 7.

## Text

8
c
D
E
F
G
H
893
RAMPRAKASH
v.
MOHAMMAD ALI KHAN (DEAD) THROUGH L.R'S
April 4, 1973
(J. M. SHELAT, ACTING C.J.,
S. N. DWIVEDI AND
Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, JJ.J
U. P. Zamindari AbolitiOfl and Land Reforms Act 19SO, s. 18(1}-
.Land held by an Intermediary as an Intermediary's grove 011 the date
immediately preceding the date of vesting deemed to be settled by th•
State Government with such intermediary-Eorlkr right• are extinguith.
ed-Res Judicat<>-No res judicata when issue in earlier decision w""
different.
In February 1946, H lea<:ed his share in a grove iJi Uttar Pradesh
to the appellant and sold to him the trees standing thereon. Similarly
A, a widow, leased her share and that of her minor children in the
grove and sold the standing trees to the· appellant. Subseqllllntly
the
proprietary right of some other co-sharers in the grove was sold to one
M. The appellal>t instituted a suit sometime in 1946 against M and
others for injunction and alternatively for possession over the
grove.
Sometime in 1947 M and others also instiu.ted a rival suit for caiu:ellation of the aforesaid leases on the contention that under s. 246 of · the
U. P. Tenancy Ac:t the executiOID of a lease by some of the cosharers
•only, was invalid. The trial coort dismissed the appellanfs suit
and
>decreed M's suit. The lower appellate court granted a decree in fuvour
of the appellant for ·joint possession over the share of H and A in the
grove land. It was held that the lea•e executed by A ao guardian of
the minors was invalid.
M filed two appeals in the Allahabad High
Court. Duritog the peodency of the appeals M died and his legal representatives were brought on record. The appeal filed by M ·in his
own suit was dismissed by a Single Judge of the
High Court. The
appeal filed by M in .the appellant's suit was heard by another single
Judge, and was allowed with respect to the lease of grove land and dis·
missed as regards the sale of the trees, It was held that ofter the
commencement of the U. P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act
the appellant had no subsisting interest in the land. The appellant was
granted special leave to appeal to this Court.
Dismissing the appeal,
HELD : (i) As the grove in dispute was an intermediary's grove M
and others who were intermediaries on the relevant date
becJame
its
bhumidars. 1be lessee of an intermediary's grove land is· not an intermediary because he does not fall within the cletinitiOID of the
word
·'.interme~iary', _No oth~r provision of the Act gives him any kind of
mterest ID the rntermedrary's grove land. 1be appellant got no right in
:the grove land in dispute.
[895EJ
f!ana Sheo Ambar Singh v, Allal!Gbad Bank Ltd, Allahabad, {1962]
2 S.C.R. 441 and lamshed lahan Begam and others v. Lakhan Lal and
others, [1970] 2 S.C.R, 566, relied on.
(ii) Tiie dismissat of M's other appeal by the High Coun coo1d not
operate as rer judicata in the present appeal because the questions
at
issue in the two appeals were different. [8950]
894
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 S.C.R.
C!v1L APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1860 of
1967.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated
Augmt 8, 1967 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal
]\;~_ ::350 of 1953.
IC. P. Gupta, for the appellant.
J.P. Gopal and Sobhag Mal Jain, for respondents Nos. 1 to 7.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Dw1vEDI, J.-In this appeal the bone of contention is a certain
zamindari grove. The grove belonged to a number of co-sharers.
But in a partition it fell to the share of one Sakhawat Ali and one
Hafiz Ali. On Femruary 16, 1946 Hafiz Ali executed a composite
document of lease and sale in favour of the appellant, Ram
Praknsh.
He let out his share in the grove land and sold his
share in the standing trees to Ram Prakash. On the same day
another similar document was executed in favour of the appellant
by Smt.
Abbj'.lsi,
widow of Sakhawat Ali.
She executed the
document for self and as guardian of her minor son,s and daughters.
The document was in respect of her share and her childrens share.
Subsequent to the execution of those documents the proprietary
right of some other co-sharers (presuma~y some successors of
Sakhawat Ali) in the grove land was sold to one Mohammad Ali.
The ~ppellant instiluted a suit some time in 1946 against Mohammad Ali and others for injunc<tion and alternatively for possession
over the grove.
Some time in 194 7 Mohammad Ali and others
also ;nstituted a rival suit for cancellation of the aforesaid leases.
Their ~ase was that the leases were invalid as section 246 of the
U.P. Tenancy Act prohibited the execution of a lease by some of
1he co-sharers only. The two suits were tried together. The trial
court dismissed the suit of the appellant and decreed the other
suit. Two appeals were preferred against the· decree of the trial
court.
The lower appellate court granted a decree in favour of
the appellant for joint possession over the share of Hafiz Ali .and
Smt. Abbasi in the grove land. It was held that the lease executed
by Smt. Abbasi as guardian of the minors was invalid.
So no
decree was passed in respect of their shares. The other appeal was
disposed of on the same terms.
Mohammad Ali then filed two
second appeals in the Allahabad High Court. They were numbered
2350 and 2351 of 1953. Second appeal No. 2350 of 1953 was
filed against the decree passed in the
appellant's suit;
second
arpeal Xo. 2351 of 1953 was filed against the decree in his own
suit.
During the pendency of the appeals, Mohammad Ali died
and his legal representatives were brought on record.
Second
appeal No. 2351 of 1953 was dismissed by a learned Judge of the·
lUgh Court . Second Appeal No. 2350 of 1953 came up for
A
B
c
y
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
RAM PRAKASH V. M.A. KHAN (Dwivedi, !.)
895
hearing before another learned Judge.
The appeal was allowed
with respect to the lease of grove land and' dismissed ss regards
the sale 0£ trees.
Hence this appeal b!Y special leave.
We agree with the learned Judge that after the commencement
of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Refonns Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the appellant has no
subsisting
interest in the grove land.
Section l!f(l) of the Act provides
that all lands in possession or held or deemed to be held by ·an
intermediary as an intermediary's grove on the date immediately
preceding the date of vesting shall be deemed to be settled by the
State Government with such intermediary.
Section 2( 12) of
the Act defines an intem1ediary as "a proprietor, under-proprietor,
sub-proprietor, thekedar, permanent lessee in Avadh, permanent
tenure-holder of an estate or part thereof." Section 2 ( 13) defines
"intermediary's grove" as grove land held or occupied by an intermediary as such.
As the grove in dispute was an intermediary's grove Mohammad
Ali and others, who were intennediaries on the relevant date,
became its bhumidars. The lessee of an intermediary's grove land
is not an inermediary because he does not fall within the definition
of the word "intermediary".
Ni;> other provision of the Act gives
him ·any kind of interest in the intermediary's grove land. Accord'
i.j)gly, the appellant gets no right in the grove land in dispute.
The scheme of the Act is to createl new rights .in place of old
rights. The old rights are dead and gone after the commencement
of the Act.
(vide Rana Shea Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank
Ltd., Allahabad(1) and Jamshed Jahan Begam and others
v.
Lakhan Lal and others(2 ).
The decision of the High Court in second appeal No. 2351 of
1953 cannot operate as res judicata in this appeal. Second appeal
No. 2351 of 1953 arose out of the suit instituted by Mohammad
Ali and others. That suit was for cancellation of the leases on the
ground that they were made in contravention of the provisions of
s. 246 of the U.P. Tenancy Act. The question whether the
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act gave any rights to
the appellant in the grove land in dispute could not be and was in
fact not considered in that appeal.
In that appeal the material
(1) [1962] 2 S. C. R. 441.
(2) [1970] 2 S. C. R. 566.
896
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1973] 3 s.c.a..
issue was whether the le.ases were void. The argument on 'behalf
of Mohammad Ali and others in second appeal No. 2350 of 1953
now is thalt assuming that the leases are valid, the lessee has no
subsisting right in the grove land after the enforcement of the Act.
As the grove is land covered by the Act; it will be governed
by the provisions of the Act and not by the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act.
We have already held that the appellant's
lessee rights came to an end on die commencement of the Act.
And the Act conferred on him no new rights. In the result, there
is no force in this appeal. It is dismissed with costs.
G.C.
Appeal dismissed.
A
B
c