{"id":133586,"date":"1999-04-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1999-04-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999"},"modified":"2017-07-05T00:26:48","modified_gmt":"2017-07-04T18:56:48","slug":"mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999","title":{"rendered":"Mishri Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dhirendra Nath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 April, 1999"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mishri Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dhirendra Nath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 April, 1999<\/div>\n
Author: Banerjee<\/div>\n
Bench: Umesh C. Banerjee, M. Jagannadha Rao<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMISHRI LAL (DEAD) BY LRS.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nDHIRENDRA NATH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t06\/04\/1999\n\nBENCH:\nUmesh C. Banerjee, M. Jagannadha Rao\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
BANERJEE,J.\n<\/p>\n
      This  appeal  is\tdirected against the  order  of\t the
\nMadhya\tPradesh High Court confirming the preliminary decree
\npassed by the trial court and allowing the plaintiffs’ claim
\nfor  redemption in respect of mortgaged houses and khudkasht
\nland.\t 2.    The   contextual\t  facts\t record\t  that\t the
\ndefendant-mortgagee   has  challenged  the   right  of\t the
\nplaintiff-mortgagor  to\t redeem assorted items\tof  property
\nwhich  were  mortgaged prior to the enactment of the  Madhya
\nBharat\tZamindari  Abolition Act, 1951 (Samvat\t2008).\t The
\nlearned\t trial\tjudge  decreed\tthe   suit  and\t the  appeal
\ntherefrom  however before the learned single judge  resulted
\nin  an order of reference before a Division Bench by  reason
\nof  expression of a view contra, by another Single Judge  of
\nIndore\tBench in second appeal No.498 of 1965, (Yakub son of
\nKasamji\t v.   Yakub  son of Fakir Mohammad &  Ors.)  3.\t  On
\nhowever\t a  detail  analysis of facts it  appears  that\t the
\nplaintiff-   respondent\t being\tthe   Zamindar\tof   village
\nKamalpur,  during the subsistence of the Zamindari, executed
\ntwo  mortgage-deeds dated 4.8.1947 and 5.1.1948 in favour of
\nthe  defendant-appellant  for  securing\t thereunder  a\tloan
\nagainst movable property and houses, Zamindari and Khudkasht
\nlands.\t The  possession  of the mortgaged property  as\t the
\nrecord shows was delivered to the mortgagee-defendant and in
\na suit filed for redemption of the mortgage, the trial court
\nas noted above decreed the suit with an express finding that
\nthe  plaintiff was entitled to redeem the mortgage.  4.\t  Be
\nit noted here that the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act
\nhas  been engrafted into the statute book for acquisition of
\nrights\tof proprietors in villages, Muhals, Chaks or  blocks
\nsettled\t on  Zamindari system so as to subserve\t the  public
\npurposes  of  the improvement of agriculture  and  financial
\ncondition  of  agriculturists  and came into force  on\t25th
\nJune,  1951.   5.   Section  2c,  defined  “Khudkasht  land”
\nmeaning\t thereby  land\tcultivated by  Zamindar\t himself  or
\nthrough\t employees  or\thired labourers and  includes  `sir’
\nland.\tSection\t 3  of the Act provides for vesting  of\t the
\nproprietary  rights  in the State and Section 4 records\t the
\nconsequence of vesting of an estate in the State.  Section 4
\n(27)  provides\tthat notwithstanding anything  contained  in
\nsub-section  (1) the proprietor shall continue to remain  in
\npossession  of his Khudkasht land so recorded in the  annual
\nvillage\t papers\t before\t the  date   of\t vesting.   6.\t It,
\ntherefore,   appears  that  that   there  is  a\t categorical
\nexpression  of statutory intent that the land which has\t not
\nbeen  recorded\tas Khudkasht land is liable to vest  in\t the
\nState.\t Conversly  thus, the intent of the  legislature  is
\nloud enough to indicate that while Zamindari or intermediary
\ninterest  was  being abolished, due care has been  taken  to
\nprotect\t the  Khudkasht\t land  and  allowed  the  subsisting
\ninterest  of  the Zamindar to continue so as to\t enable\t the
\nZamindar either to cultivate himself or through employees or
\nhired  labourers and in that event the same would be out  of
\ncontemplation  of  the\tstatute.   The statute\thas  put  an
\nembargo\t even  on  the mortgagee of Khudkasht  land.   As  a
\nmatter\tof  fact the Act read as a whole suggests  that\t the
\nmortgagee  would  not be able to upgrade his entitlement  or
\nstatus\t and  the  possession  of  Khudkasht   land   stands
\ntransferred  from  him to the Zamindar by operation of\tlaw.
\nSection\t 4  and\t various sub-sections thereunder  read\twith
\nSections  5 and 6 categorically depict the same and it is on
\nthis  aspect  of the matter we lend our concurrence  to\t the
\nobservation  of the High Court to the following effect:-  “A
\nmortgagee’s  interest in the mortgaged Khudkasht land is not
\nallowed\t to blossom into larger interest of ownership or  of
\nindefeasible  right  to\t possess the land in virtue  of\t the
\nadvent of the new land tenure system.”.\n<\/p>\n
      7.   The\tdefinition section as noticed above  and  in
\nparticular  the definition of the word “Proprietor” means  a
\nperson\tas  respects  a village, muhal or  land\t settled  on
\nZamindari  system  owning  whether in trust or for  his\t own
\nbenefit,  such\tvillage, muhal or land.\t The  definition  of
\n“Khudkasht”   under  Section  2c   referring  therein\tland
\ncultivated  by the Zamindar himself or through employees  or
\nhired labourers, read with section 4(2), makes it abundantly
\nclear  that  Section  2 (a) cannot but mean that it  is\t the
\nZamindar  or  Proprietor  only who has been allowed  by\t the
\nstatute\t to  obtain  the benefit.  The mortgagee  cannot  be
\nallowed\t to claim a better title by reason of the provisions
\nas  noted  above than he has prior to the enactment  of\t the
\nstatute.   8.  As regards the Yakub’s case the High Court in
\nparagraph  13 of the Judgment observed:- “True, for the view
\ntaken  in Yakub’s case (supra) reliance is placed mainly  by
\nthe  learned single judge, on a decision rendered by another
\nlearned\t  single  judge\t of  this   court  in  Bhagwant\t  v.
\nRamchandra  (1961  JLJ\t286).\tIn  that  decision  also,  a
\nsimplistic  view of the definition was taken and relying  on
\nSection\t 2(a)(a)  read with sub-clause (2) of section  2  of
\nQanoon Mal, Gwalior State, the rights of Zamindar\/proprietor
\nwere  subrogated to that of his mortgagee and the latter was
\neven  held entitled under Section 38 to claim to be a “Pakka
\ntenant”\t and  thereby  to  keep alive his  interest  in\t the
\nmortgaged  “Khudkasht”\tland  in direct\t opposition  to\t the
\nobject\tand purpose of Section 4(1)(f).\t Reference was\talso
\nmade  in  Yakub’s’ case (supra) to a Bench decision of\tthis
\nCourt  in  Khumansingh v.  Dhansingh (1971 RN 351), but,  in
\nour  opinion,  reliance thereon was misconceived.   In\tthat
\ncase, it was held that in “Z.A.\t Act” emphasis was on actual
\ncultivation  of the “Khudkasht” lands and not on entry\t(“so
\nrecorded”)  in the revenue record, while construing Sections
\n2(c)  and  4(2)\t of the said Act.  The scope and  object  of
\nSection\t 4(1)(f) did not come up for consideration of  their
\nLordships in that case.\t Although reference was also made in
\nYakub’s\t case  to  another  Bench decision  of\tthis  Court,
\nChaturbhuj  v.\tMohanlal (1961 RN 182), that was also not  a
\ncase  of  a  mortgagee\tversus Zamindar and  in\t that  case,
\nconstruction  of the provisions merely of Sections 4(2)\t and
\n2(c) has to be read.”\n<\/p>\n
      9.  This aspect of the matter, however, has been dealt
\nwith  by this Court in the case of Meharban Singh v.  Naresh
\nSingh  (AIR<\/a>  1971 SC 77) wherein this Court in\tparagraph  8
\nobserved:- “8.\tA plain reading of these sections would show
\nthat  all  rights, title and interest of the proprietors  in
\nthe  area notified were to cease and were instead to vest in
\nthe  State  free from all encumbrances with effect from\t all
\nencumbrances  with effect from the date of notification\t and
\nafter  such  vesting  in  the\tState  every  mortgage\twith
\npossession  existing  on  the  property so  vested  or\tpart
\nthereof\t on  the  date\timmediately preceding  the  date  of
\nvesting,  to  the  extent  of the  amount  secured  on\tsuch
\nproperty  or  part,  thereof,  is   to\tbe  deemed,  without
\nprejudice  to the right of the State under Section 3 to have
\nbeen  substituted  by  a simple mortgage.   The\t proprietor,
\nhowever,  notwithstanding other consequences of the  vesting
\nin  a State, is entitled to continue to remain in possession
\nof  his\t khudkasht land which is so recorded in\t the  annual
\nvillage\t papers\t before\t the date of vesting.\tNow  it\t was
\nclearly\t open  to  the plaintiffs to show that the  land  in
\nquestion  was  khudkasht and, therefore, in accordance\twith
\nSection\t 4,  they  were\t entitled to  remain  in  possession
\nthereof.”\n<\/p>\n
      10.   Mr.\t  S.K.\t Jain, appearing in support  of\t the
\nappeal\thowever contended that subsequent to the decision in
\nMeharban  Singh’s  case this Court in the case of  Budha  v.
\nAmilal<\/a>\t(1990 (4) JT, 804) expressed a different view and by
\nreason\tof  divergence\tof  views this matter  ought  to  be
\nreferred to a larger Bench for resolution and enunciation of
\nthe   law  on  the  subject.\tFor  convenience  sake\t the
\nobservation of this Court in Budha’s case (supra) is set out
\nherein below:-\n<\/p>\n
      “14.   Even if it is assumed that the lands in dispute
\nhave  to  be treated as Khudkasht lands of the appellant  by
\nvirtue of clause (i) of the inclusive part of the definition
\nof  `Khudkasht’ contained in Section 5(23) of the  Rajasthan
\nTenancy\t Act, the appellant cannot succeed in his claim that
\nhe  has acquired Khatedari rights in respect of those  lands
\non the basis of the provisions contained in sub- section (4)
\nof  Section 5 and sub-section (1) of section 29 of the\tAct.
\nSub-section  (4) of Section 5 provides that  notwithstanding
\nanything  contained  in\t sub-section (2) of  Section  5\t the
\nZamindar  or  Biswedar\tshall subject to the  provisions  of
\nSection\t 29,  continue\tto  retain  the\t possession  of\t his
\nKhudkasht,  recorded as such in the annual registers  before
\nthe  date  of  vesting.\t The words “continue to\t retain\t the
\npossession”,   imply  that  lands   which  are\trecorded  as
\nKhudkasht  in the annual register before the date of vesting
\nshould\talso be in possession of the Zamindar or Biswedar on
\nthe date of vesting and if he is in possession of such lands
\nhe can continue to retain the possession of the same subject
\nto  the\t provisions  of of Section 29.\tSub-section  (1)  of
\nSection 29 prescribes that as from the date of vesting of an
\nestate, the Zamindar or Biswedar thereof shall be a malik of
\nany Khudkasht land in his occupation on such date and shall,
\nas  such malik, be entitled to all the rights conferred\t and
\nsubject\t to all the liabilities imposed on a Khatedar tenant
\nby or under the Rajasthan Tenancy Act.\tUnder this provision
\nKhatedri  rights  have\tbeen  conferred\t on  a\tZamindar  or
\nBiswedar  as  from the date of the vesting of the estate  in
\nrespect\t of  Khudkasht\tlands  in  the\toccupation  of\tsuch
\nZamindar  or  Biswedar\ton  such date.\tThe  words  “in\t his
\noccupation  on such date” postulates that the lands,  though
\nKhudkasht,  should  be in the occupation of the Zamindar  or
\nBiswedar  on  the date of vesting of the estate.   It  would
\nthus appear that in view of sub-section (4) of Section 5 and
\nsub-section  (1)  of Section 29 of the Act the mere fact  of
\nrecording of the land as Khudkasht in the settlement records
\non the date of vesting would not be enough for a Zamindar or
\nBiswedar to acquire Khatedari rights over the said lands and
\nit  is further required that the Zamindar or Biswedar should
\nbe in possession\/occupation of the said lands on the date of
\nvesting\t   of\t the   estate\t  under\t  the\tAct.\t The
\npossession\/occupation  envisaged  by  sub-  section  (4)  of
\nSection\t 5  and sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act  is
\nactual\tpossession\/occupation  and  the\t  possession  of   a
\nmortgagor  through  the\t mortgagee  cannot  be\theld  to  be
\npossession or occupation as postulated in sub-section (4) of
\nSection 5 and sub-section (1) of Section 29 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
      15.   In\tthe  present  case the\tappellant  has\tcome
\nforward\t with  a  specific  case  in  the  plaint  that\t the
\ndefendant  is  in  possession of the lands in dispute  as  a
\nmortgagee  from\t the date of the two mortgagees.   In  other
\nwords the appellant was not in possession \/occupation of the
\nsaid  lands  on\t the date of vesting of the  estate  of\t the
\nappellant  under the Act.  The appellant cannot,  therefore,
\nclaim Khatedari rights in respect of the lands in dispute.”\n<\/p>\n
      11.   Incidentally,  be it noted that the decision  in
\nBudha’s\t case  (supra)\twas on interpretation  of  Rajasthan
\nZamindari  and Biswedari Abolition Act, 1959 whereas  Madhya
\nBharat\t Zamindari   Abolition\tAct,   1951  came   up\t for
\nconsideration  in Meharbansingh’s case.\t The later  decision
\nof  this  Court\t in  Budha’s case (supra)  however  has\t not
\nnoticed\t the judgment of this Court in Meharban Singh’s case
\n(supra)\t and  by reason of the observation of this Court  in
\nparagraph 15 of the judgment in Budha’s case, it can not but
\nbe  said that the decision in the later judgment was on\t the
\npeculiar  facts of the case.  It is further to be noted that
\nMeharban  Singh’s  case came to be decided as early as\t1970
\nand has been followed for last three decades in the State of
\nMadhya\tPradesh and innumerable number of matters have\tbeen
\ndealt  with  on\t the  basis  thereof and  in  the  event,  a
\ndifferent  view is expressed today, so far as this  specific
\nlegislation is concerned, it would unsettle the situation in
\nthe  State  of Madhya Pradesh and it is on this\t score\talso
\nthat  reliance\ton  the doctrine of `stare decisis’  may  be
\napposite.   While  it  is  true that  the  doctrine  has  no
\nstatutory  sanction  and  the  same is based on\t a  Rule  of
\nconvenience  and  expediency and as also on `Public  Policy’
\nbut  in our view, the doctrine should and ought always to be
\nstrictly  adhered  to by the courts of law to sub-serve\t the
\nends  of  justice.   12.   This Court  in  Muktul  v.\tMst.
\nManbhari & Ors.\t (1959 SCR 1099), explained the scope of the
\ndoctrine  of stare decisis with reference to Halsbury’s Laws
\nof  England  and  Corpus  Juris\t  Secundum  in\tthe   manner
\nfollowing:-  “The  principles  of `Stare  Decisis’  is\tthus
\nstated\tin  Halsbury’s\tLaws of England:   “Apart  from\t any
\nquestion as to the Courts being of co-ordinate jurisdiction,
\na  decision  which  has been followed for a long  period  of
\ntime, and has been acted upon by persons in the formation of
\ncontracts or in the disposition of their property, or in the
\ngeneral\t conduct  of  affairs, or in legal procedure  or  in
\nother  ways, will generally be followed by courts of  higher
\nauthority  than the court establishing the rule, even though
\nthe court before whom the matter arises afterwards might not
\nhave given the same decision had the question come before it
\noriginally.  But the supreme appellate Court will not shrink
\nfrom  overruling  a decision, or series of decisions,  which
\nestablish a doctrine plainly outside the statute and outside
\nthe  common  law,  when\t no title and no  contract  will  be
\nshaken,\t no  persons can complain, and no general course  of
\ndealing be altered by the remedy of a mistake”.\n<\/p>\n
      The  same\t doctrine is thus explained in Corpus  Juris
\nSecundum:- “Under the stare decisis rule, a principle of law
\nwhich  has become settled by a series of decisions generally
\nis  binding on the courts and should be followed in  similar
\ncases.\t This rule is based on expediency and public policy,
\nand,  although generally it should be strictly adhered to by
\nthe courts, it is not universally applicable.”\n<\/p>\n
      13.   Be it noted however that Corpus Juris  Secundum,
\nadds a rider that “previous decisions should not be followed
\nto  the\t extent\t that  grievous\t  wrong\t may  result;\tand,
\naccordingly, the courts ordinarily will not adhere to a rule
\nor  principle  established by previous decisions which\tthey
\nare  convinced\tis erroneous.  The rule of stare decisis  is
\nnot  so imperative or inflexible as to preclude a  departure
\ntherefrom  in  any  case,  but\t its  application  must\t  be
\ndetermined  in each case by the discretion of the court, and
\nprevious decisions should not be followed to the extent that
\nerror may be perpetuated and grievous wrong may result.” 14.
\nThe  statement though deserves serious consideration in\t the
\nevent  of  a  definite finding as to the perpetration  of  a
\ngrave  wrong  but  that by itself does not denude  the\ttime
\ntested\tdoctrine  of  Stare Decisis  its  efficacy.   Taking
\nrecourse to the doctrine would be an imperative necessity to
\navoid  uncertainty and confusion.  The basic feature of\t law
\nis its certainty and in the event of there being uncertainty
\nas  regards the state of law – the society would be in utter
\nconfusion  resultant  effect  of which would bring  about  a
\nsituation  of  chaos – a situation which ought always to  be
\navoided.\n<\/p>\n
      15.   In\tRaj  Narain Pandey & Ors.  v.\tSant  Prasad
\nTewari\t& Ors.<\/a>\t(1973 (2) SCR 835 , H.R.  Khanna, J.  (as he
\nthen  was)  observed at page 840 of the Report as  follows:-
\n“In the matter of the interpretation of a local statute, the
\nview  taken by the High Court over a number of years  should
\nnormally  be adhered to and not disturbed.  A different view
\nwould  not  only  introduce and element of  uncertainty\t and
\nconfusion,  it\twould  also have the  effect  of  unsettling
\ntransactions which might have been entered into on the faith
\nof  those  decisions.  The doctrine of stare decisis can  be
\naptly  invoked\tin  such a situation.  As observed  by\tLord
\nEvershed  M.R.\tin the case of Brownsea Haven Properties  v.
\nPoole  Corpn.,\tthere is well established authority for\t the
\nview  that a decision of long standing on the basis of which
\nmany  persons will in the course of time have arranged their
\naffairs\t should not lightly be disturbed by a superior court
\nnot strictly bound itself by the decision.”\n<\/p>\n
      16.  Recently in Bishamber Dass Kohli v.\tSatya Bhalla<\/a>
\n(1993  (1)  SCC\t 566)  J.S.  Verma, J.\t (as  he  then\twas)
\nobserved  in respect of a provision of the East Punjab Urban
\nRent Restriction Act, 1949 as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
      “This  is\t how  this provision appears  to  have\tbeen
\nunderstood  at\tleast ever since then and the people in\t the
\nState have arranged their affairs on that basis.  Apart from
\nthe  fact that this view commends to us as the correct view,
\nthe  desirability  of continuing the settled view is also  a
\nreason in its favour.”\n<\/p>\n
      17.   More recently in Gangeshwar Limited v.  State of
\nU.P.   &  Ors.<\/a>\t(1995 (6) SCC 84 this Court observed :-\t “We
\nwould  have  appreciated this attractive argument had  there
\nnot  been  two decisions of the Allahabad High Court in\t the
\nway,  which are to the contrary.  These are – State of\tU.P.
\nv.   Har Bilas Goel and Jai Ram Singh<\/a> v.  State of U.P.\t The
\nunderstanding  of  section 6 of the Ceiling Act by the\tHigh
\nCourt  reflected in these two decisions, when none has\tbeen
\nplaced before us to the contrary, would require upholding on
\nthe  principle of stare decisis, for if we go to reinterpret
\nthe  provision\tcontrarily,  it\t  would\t upset\tthe  settled
\nposition  in  the  State  insofar as this  area\t of  law  is
\nconcerned.”\n<\/p>\n
      18.   Paripoornan,  J.  in a similar vein\t in  Kattite
\nValappil  Pathumma & Ors.  v.  Taluk Land Board & Ors.<\/a>\t1997
\n(4)  SCC  114 observed:- “We are further of the\t view,\tthat
\neven  if  another view is possible, we are not\tinclined  to
\ntake   a   different  view  at\t this  distance\t  of   time.
\nInterpretation\tof  the law is not a mere  mental  exercise.
\nThings\twhich have been adjudged long ago should be  allowed
\nto  rest  in  peace.  A decision rendered long\tago  can  be
\noverruled only if this Court comes to the conclusion that it
\nis  manifestly wrong or unfair and not merely on the  ground
\nthat  another  interpretation is possible and the court\t may
\narrive\tat a different conclusion.  We should remember\tthat
\nthe  law  laid down by the High Court in the above  decision
\nhas not been doubted so far.  The Act in question is a State
\nenactment.   These  are weighty considerations to hold\tthat
\neven  if  a different view is possible, if it will have\t the
\neffect\t of   upsetting\t or   reopening\t past\tand   closed
\ntransactions  or unsettling titles all over the State,\tthis
\nCourt  should  be loathe to take a different view.  On\tthis
\nground\tas  well, we are not inclined to interfere with\t the
\njudgment under appeal.”\n<\/p>\n
      19.  In this context reference may also be made to two
\nEnglish\t decisions:   (a) In Admiralty Comrs.  V.   Valverda
\n(Owners) (1938 Appeal Cases 173 at 194) wherein the House of
\nLords  observed\t that\teven  long-established\tconveyancing
\npractice,  although  not  as  authoritative  as\t a  judicial
\ndecision,  will cause the House of Lords to hesitate  before
\ndeclaring  it wrong and (b) In Button v.  Director of Public
\nProsecution, Swain v.  Director of Public Prosecutions (1966
\nAC 591) House of Lords observed:- “In Corpus Juris Secundum,
\na  contemporary statement of American Law the stare  decisis
\nrule  has  been\t stated to be a principle of law  which\t has
\nbecome settled by a series of decisions generally is binding
\non  the courts and should be followed in similar cases.\t  It
\nhas  been  stated that this rule is based on expediency\t and
\npublic\tpolicy\tand  should be strictly adhered\t to  by\t the
\ncourts.\t  Under\t this  rule courts are bound to\t follow\t the
\ncommon\tlaw as it has been judicially declared in previously
\nadjudicated  cases  and rules of substantive law  should  be
\nreasonably  interpreted and administered.  This rule has  to
\npreserve the harmony and stability of the law and to make as
\nsteadfast   as\tpossible   judicially  declared\t  principles
\naffecting  the rights of property, it being indispensable to
\nthe  due administration of justice, especially by a court of
\nlast  resort, that a question once deliberately examined and
\ndecided\t should\t be  considered\t as settled  and  closed  to
\nfurther\t argument.  It is a salutary rule, entitled to great
\nweight\tand ordinarily should be strictly adhered to by\t the
\ncourts.\t The courts are slow to interfere with the principle
\nannounced  by the decision, and it may be upheld even though
\nthey  would decide otherwise were the question a new one, or
\nequitable  considerations  might suggest a different  result
\nand although it has been erroneously applied in a particular
\ncase.\tThe rule represents an element of continuity in\t law
\nand  is rooted in the psychologic need to satisfy reasonable
\nexpectations,  but  it\tis a principle of policy and  not  a
\nmechanical  formula  of\t adherence to  the  latest  decision
\nhowever recent and questionable when such adherence involves
\ncollision with a prior doctrine more embracing in its scope,
\nintrinsically sounder and verified by experience.\n<\/p>\n
      20.    The   law\tas  settled   by   this\t  court\t  in
\nMeharbansingh’s\t case (supra) has stood the test of time and
\nif  at this juncture a contra opinion is expressed, it\twill
\nopen  up a series of conflicts and consequent litigation and
\nthereby\t disturbing settled position of law in the State  of
\nMadhya\tPradesh.   This\t Court’s decision on  the  Rajasthan
\nlegislation  has  been decided in the peculiar facts of\t the
\nmatter\tin issue therein.  There is neither any\t co-relation
\nnor  any identity of subject, between the two enactments and
\nas  a matter of fact the legislations speak differently.  As
\nsuch,  we  are not able to record our concurrence  with\t the
\nsubmission  of Mr.  Jain that the law needs to be enunciated
\nmore  fully  by reason of a different view as  expressed  by
\nthis Court in Budha’s case.  Budha’s case (supra) as noticed
\nabove,\thas  been  decided  on its own\tmerits\tand  has  no
\napplicability  in  the\tcontextual facts.  The\tdoctrine  of
\nstare  decisis therefore, prompt us to reject the contention
\nof Shri Jain.  In that view of the matter and since the High
\nCourt  has proceeded on the basis of Meharbansingh’s case  ,
\nwe  do feel it convenient to record that the High Court\t has
\ndecided\t the  issue in its proper perspective and we see  no
\nreason\tto express any different view at this point of time.\n<\/p>\n
21.   The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with  no
\norder as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mishri Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dhirendra Nath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 April, 1999 Author: Banerjee Bench: Umesh C. Banerjee, M. Jagannadha Rao PETITIONER: MISHRI LAL (DEAD) BY LRS. Vs. RESPONDENT: DHIRENDRA NATH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/04\/1999 BENCH: Umesh C. Banerjee, M. Jagannadha […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-133586","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMishri Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dhirendra Nath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 April, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mishri Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dhirendra Nath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 April, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1999-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-07-04T18:56:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mishri Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dhirendra Nath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 April, 1999\",\"datePublished\":\"1999-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-04T18:56:48+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999\"},\"wordCount\":3785,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999\",\"name\":\"Mishri Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dhirendra Nath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 April, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1999-04-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-07-04T18:56:48+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mishri Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dhirendra Nath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 April, 1999\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mishri Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dhirendra Nath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 April, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mishri Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dhirendra Nath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 April, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1999-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-07-04T18:56:48+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mishri Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dhirendra Nath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 April, 1999","datePublished":"1999-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-04T18:56:48+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999"},"wordCount":3785,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999","name":"Mishri Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dhirendra Nath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 April, 1999 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1999-04-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-07-04T18:56:48+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mishri-lal-dead-by-lrs-vs-dhirendra-nath-dead-by-lrs-ors-on-6-april-1999#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mishri Lal (Dead) By Lrs vs Dhirendra Nath (Dead) By Lrs. & Ors on 6 April, 1999"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133586","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=133586"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/133586\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=133586"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=133586"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=133586"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}