PETITIONER:
RAM ADHAR SINGH (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
BANSI (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT06/03/1987
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
BENCH:
SEN, A.P. (J)
ERADI, V. BALAKRISHNA (J)
CITATION:
1987 AIR 987 1987 SCR (2) 595
1987 SCC (2) 482 JT 1987 (1) 704
1987 SCALE (1)577
ACT:
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1951--Section 21(1)(d)--Usufructuary mortgage by an occupan-
cy tenant--Not valid in eye of law--Mortgagee entitled to
retain possession only till repayment of mortgage debt.
Recovery of Rents (Bengal) Act, 1859---Section 6--Usu-
fructuary mortage of occupancy holding--Impermissible.
U.P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940--All usufructuary mort-
gages became self-liquidating mortgages.
HEADNOTE:
The first respondent's suit under Section 202 of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 for
possessing on payment of the mortgage money and ejectment of
the appellants under Section 21(1)(d) of the Act was resist-
ed on the ground that the right of redemption stood extin-
guished in the year 1929 as the usufructuary mortgage which
was executed when the Recovery of Rents (Bengal), Act, 1859
was in force, was a valid one and the mortgagors, the prede-
cessors in interest of the respondent had lost all their
rights titles and interest in the land. The Judicial Officer
dismissed the suit.
On appeal, the Additional Commissioner decreed the first
respondent-plaintiff's suit holding that the usufructuary
mortgage of occupancy rights was valid only in a qualified
sense in that the appellants were entitled to retain posses-
sion until the mortgage debt was paid and that no tenancy
law right from the Recovery of Rents (Bengal) Act, 1859 to
U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 ever made the occupancy rights trans-
ferable.
The appeal to the Board of Revenue having been dis-
missed, the appellants moved the High Court under Article
226 and a Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the writ
petition and upheld the order of the Board of Revenue.
596
On appeal, the Division Bench held that the transaction
of the present kind was not a mortgage properly so-called
but yet was a mortgage within the meaning of Section
21(1)(d) of the Act.
In appeal to this Court, challenging the correctness of
the view of the High Court, it was contended that both the
Board of Revenue as well as the High Court failed to appre-
ciate that the usufructuary mortgage in question was execut-
ed at a time when the Recovery of Rents (Bengal) Act, 1859
was in force, and that a usufructuary mortgage was valid
under Section 6 of the Act.
Dismissing the appeal, this Court,
HELD: 1.1 The settled law as administered in the then
United Provinces was that a usufructuary mortgage of an
occupancy holding was invalid and there was no transfer of
an interest by the occupancy tenant and the mortgagee ac-
quired no right other than the right to retain possession
and fail back upon the stipulation in the so-called mortgage
bond till his money was paid. [599C-D]
1.2 The view that a usufructuary mortgage by an occupan-
cy tenant was not valid in the eye of law has been accepted
by the Legislature in clause (d) of Section 21(1) of the
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 and the
matter stands concluded by the doctrine of stare decisis. To
hold otherwise now would imply not only unsettling the law
which has stood the test of time for over 100 years but
would have the effect of reopening transactions past and
closed and unsettling titles. [599D-E]
2.1 There is nothing in Section 6 of the Recovery of
Rents (Bengal) Act to suggest that a usufructuary mortgage
of an occupancy holding like the transaction in question was
permissible. [599F]
2.2 The right of occupancy tenant was not transferable
under Section 6 of the Act and in case of such a transfer
the tenant would he deemed to have abandoned the holding
and, therefore, the right of an occupancy tenant cannot be
set up by the purchaser in defence to a suit for ejectment
by the zamindar. [600B]
3. In the instant case, the relationship of the parties
was regulated by the stipulations contained in the mortgage
bond and under the terms the appellants were entitled to
retain possession till the mortgage debt was paid off. Under
the U.P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940, all
597
usufructuary mortgages became serf-liquidating mortgages.
The mortgage money would be deemed to have been paid off.
[600F-G]
Narendra Narayan Roy Chowdhary v. Ishan Chandra Sen,
[1974] 13 Bengal LR 278; Khiali Ram v. Nathu Lal, ILR [1893]
15 All 219 (FB); Samharu v. Dharamraj Pandey and Ors.,
[1969] All. LJ 943 (FB); Barhu Singh & Ors. v. Kharpattu &
Ors., [1956], All LJ 87 and Ram Prasad v. Bishambhar Singh,
AIR 1946 All 400, referred to.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 188
of 1974.
From the Judgment and Decree dated 25.8.72 of the Alla-
habad High Court in Special Appeal No. 223 of 1966.
P.P. Juneja for the Appellant.
Mrs. Rani Chhabra and Mrs. Rachna Gupta for the Respond-
ents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
SEN, J. The short question involved in this’ appeal on
certificate is whether a Division Bench of the Allahabad
High Court was right in following the decision of an earlier
Division Bench in Barhu Singh & Ors. v. Kharpattu & Ors.,
[1956] All LJ 87, which was later reiterated in Samheru v.
Dharamraj Pandey & Ors., [1969] All LJ 943 (FB), that a
usufructuary mortgage of an occupancy holding was not valid
as a mortgage with all its incidents and subject to the
provisions of law relating to usufructuary mortgages, but
was valid only to the limited extent that the mortgagee was
entitled only to retain possession of the land mortgaged
till there was repayment of the mortgage debt.
The question arose in proceedings in a suit under s.202
of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951
for possession on payment of the mortgage money brought by
respondent No. 1 Bansi claiming himself to be an heir of the
original mortgagors Sheo Balak and Ram Phal, on the ground
that the appellants who were the successors-in-interest of
the original mortgagee Bhairo Singh, had become asamis and
therefore liable to ejectment under s.21(1)(d) of the Act.
The suit was resisted by the appellants on the ground inter
alia that the usufructuary mortgage deed dated July 21, 1869
having been executed when the Recovery of Rents (Bengal)
Act, 1859 was in force,
598
was a valid one and therefore the fight of redemption stood
extinguished in the year 1929 as a result of which the
mortgagors Sheo Balak and Ram Phal, the predecessors-in-
interest of the respondents lost all their right, title and
interest in the land and thus the appellants could not be
treated as asamis liable to ejectment under s.21(1)(d) of
the Act but had indeed become sirdars. That defence of
theirs weighed with the Judicial Officer, Varanasi who by
his judgment dated May 11, 1960 dismissed the plaintiffs
suit. On appeal by the respondents, the Additional Commis-
sioner, Varanasi Division, Varanasi by his judgment dated
October 10, 1960 decreed the plaintiff’s suit holding that
the usufructuary mortgage of occupancy rights was valid only
in a qualified sense in that the appellants were entitled to
retain possession until the mortgage debt was paid. The
learned Additional Commissioner observed that no tenancy law
fight from the Recovery of Rents (Bengal) Act, 1859 to U.P.
Tenancy Act, 1939 ever made the occupancy fights transfera-
ble. The appellants preferred an appeal to the Board of
Revenue but Shri S.N. Mitra, ICS, Judicial Member, Board of
Revenue by his judgment and order dated April 25, 1963
dismissed the appeal. The appellants moved the High Court
under Art. 226 of the Constitution but a learned Single
Judge by his judgment dated February 28, 1966 dismissed the
writ petition and upheld the order of the Board of Revenue.
On appeal, a Division Bench following the decisions in
Khiali Ram v. Nathu Lal, ILR (1893) 15 All 219 (FB), Barhu
Singh v. Kharpattu (supra) and Samharu v. Dharamraj Pandey
(supra) held that the transaction of the present kind was
not a mortgage properly so-called but yet was a mortgage
within the meaning of s.21(1)(d) of the Act.
Shri Juneja, learned counsel for the appellants, who are
successors-in-interest of the original mortgagee Bhairo
Singh strenuously assails the correctness of that view and
contends that both the Board of Revenue as well as the High
Court failed to appreciate that the usufructuary mortgage of
the occupancy holding in question was executed by Sheo Balak
and Ram Phal, the predecessors-in-interest of the respond-
ents, on Asadh Sudi 12 Samvat 1925, corresponding to July
21, 1860 i.e. at a time when the Recovery of Rents (Bengal)
Act, 1859 was in force. He presses into service certain
observations of Sir Richard Couch, CJ in Narendra Narayan
Roy Chowdhary v. Ishan Chandra Sen, [1974] 13 Bengal LR 278
for the submission that a usufructuary mortgage was valid
under s.6 of that Act. We find it difficult to accept the
contention.
We find that it has been the consistent view of the Allaha-
bad
599
High Court that a usufructuary mortgage of an occupancy
holding was not valid as a mortgage with all its incidents
and subject to the provisions of law relating to usufructu-
ary mortgage but was valid only in a qualified sense i.e. in
the sense of subletting with a covenant that the mortgagor
will not be entitled to recover possession without payment
of the mortgage money, and further that under such a mort-
gage there is no transfer of the right of an occupancy
tenant and consequently no suit for redemption was maintain-
able nor was there any extinguishment of the right of an
occupancy tenant upon the expiry of the period of limitation
fixed for redemption under Art. 148 of the Limitation Act,
1908. There is a long catena of decisions dealing with the
question starting from Khiali Ram v. Nathu Lal (supra) down
to Samharu v. Dharamraj Pandey (supra). It follows that it
has been the settled law as administered in the then United
Provinces that a usufructuary mortgage of an occupancy
holding was invalid and there was no transer of an interest
by the occupancy tenant and the mortgage acquired no other
right other than the right to retain possession and fall
back upon the stipulation in the so-called mortgage bond
till his money was paid. As pointed out in the Full Bench
decision in Samharu v. Dharamraj Pandey (supra), the view
that a usufructuary mortgage by an occupancy tenant was not
valid in the eye of law has been accepted by the Legislature
in cl.(d) of s.21(1) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land
Reforms Act, 195 1. The matter stands concluded by the
doctrine of stare decisis. If we were to subscribe to the
contention advanced by the learned counsel for the appel-
lants, it would imply not only unsettling the law which has
stood the test time for over 100 years but have the effect
of reopening transactions past and closed and unsettling
titles all over the State.
We also find no substance in the contention advanced.
There is nothing in s.6 of the Recovery of Rents (Bengal)
Act to suggest that a usufructuary mortgage of an occupancy
holding like the transaction in question was permissible.
Sir Richard Couch, CJ in the course of his judgment in
Narendra Narayan Roy Chowdhary’s case has referred to s.6 of
that Act which, in terms, made the holding of an occupancy
tenant a non-transferable tenure. After referring to the
provision contained in s.6 which provided for conferral of
occupancy rights on a ryot who was in cultivating possession
of his land for a period of 12 years, the learned Chief
Justice unequivocally stated that the occupancy rights were
not transferable:
“The ordinary construction of the word appears to me to be,
that the right is only to be in the person who has
600
occupied for 12 years, and it was not intended to give any
right of property which could be transferred.”
After holding that the right of occupancy tenant was not
transferable under s.6 of the Act, the learned Chief Justice
went on to observe that in case of such a transfer, the
tenant would be deemed to have abandoned the holding and
therefore the right of an occupancy tenant cannot be set up
by the purchaser in defence to a suit for ejectment by the
zamindar:
“Now, if a ryot having a right of occupancy
endeavours to transfer it to another person,
and, in fact, quits his occupation, and ceases
himself to cultivate or hold the land, it
appears to me that he may be rightly consid-
ered to have abandoned his right, and that
nothing is left in him which would prevent the
zamindar from recovering the possession from
the person who claims under the transfer.”
That very eminent Judge explained this in another way:
“(I)f the right which is given by the law is
one which exists only so long as he holds or
cultivates the land, when he ceases to do
that, by selling his supposed right and put-
ting another in his place, his fight is gone
and cannot stand in the way of the landlord’s
recovering possession.”
We fail to appreciate how these observations can be of any
avail to the appellants. The view expressed by Couch, CJ
that the right of an occupancy tenant under s.6 of the
Recovery of Rents (Bengal) Act does not lay down any con-
trary principle. As to the question of abandonment, the
relationship of the parties was regulated by the stipula-
tions contained in the mortgage bond and under the terms the
appellants were entitled to retain possession till the
mortgage debt was paid of. we wish to point out that under
the U.P. Debt Redemption Act, 1940 all usufructuary mort-
gages became self-liquidating mortgages. As held by the High
Court in Ram Prasad v. Bishambhar Singh, AIR 1946 All 400,
the mortgage money would be deemed to have been paid off.
For these reasons, the appeal must fail and is dismissed
with costs.
N.P.V. Appeal dismissed. ?601