{"id":192303,"date":"1969-02-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1969-02-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969"},"modified":"2018-04-18T11:56:31","modified_gmt":"2018-04-18T06:26:31","slug":"patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969","title":{"rendered":"Patel Bhuder Mavji Etc vs Jat Mamdaji Kalaji (Deceased) &#8230; on 13 February, 1969"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Patel Bhuder Mavji Etc vs Jat Mamdaji Kalaji (Deceased) &#8230; on 13 February, 1969<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_citations\">Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 1196, \t\t  1969 SCR  (3) 690<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: G Mitter<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: Mitter, G.K.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nPATEL BHUDER MAVJI ETC.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nJAT MAMDAJI KALAJI (DECEASED) THROUGH L. Rs.JAT SAHEB KHAN M\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n13\/02\/1969\n\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nBENCH:\nMITTER, G.K.\nHIDAYATULLAH, M. (CJ)\n\nCITATION:\n 1969 AIR 1196\t\t  1969 SCR  (3) 690\n 1969 SCC  (2) 139\n CITATOR INFO :\n R\t    1971 SC1575\t (18)\n\n\nACT:\nSaurashtra  Agricultural  Debtors Relief Act  Mortgage\twith\npossession--Mortgagor applying for adjustment-Land  declared\nKhalsa under the Land Reforms Act-Effect of-Saurashtra\tLand\nReforms\t Act, (Sau, 25 of 1951)-Land declared  Khalsa-Rights\nof Mortgagor whether extinguished.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe   Respondent-Girasdars  in\tthe  State   of\t  Saurashtra\nmortgaged  their lands with possession with the\t appellants,\nwho paid the land revenue and other dues.  By the Saurashtra\nLand Reforms Act (25 of 1951), the, rights of the  Girasdars\nwere  extinguished,  and  the tenants  of  Girasdars  became\noccupants  of  land  held by them.   The  Land\tReforms\t Act\nprovided  for the Mamlatdar to allot land to a Girasdar\t for\npersonal  cultivation.\tThe special Mamlatdar  declared\t the\nlands in dispute to be Khalsa and full assessment had to; be\ntaken,\tand that there was no need to grant  'any  occupancy\nrights.\t  The  Saurashtra Agricultural Debtors\tRelief\tAct,\n1954  was enacted scaling down the debts and  for  providing\nfor   rest-oration  of\ttheir  property,  to  the   debtors.\nThereupon  the respondents applied.for adjustment of  their\ndebt  to  the Court having jurisdiction under  the-  Debtors\nRelief\tArt.   The' appellants relied on the  order  of\t the\nSpecial\t  Mamlatdar  declaring\tthe  lands  as\tKhalsa\t and\ncontended that the lands having been declared as Kholsa, the\nrespondents had lost their rights therein.\nHELD : The rights of the respondents-Girasdars in this case\nwere not extinguished under the Land Reforms Act and it\t was\nopen to the court exercising jurisdiction under the  Debtors\nRelief\t Act  to  scale\t down  the  debt  and  provide\t the\nrestoration of the land in possession of the mortgagees\t to,\nthe  mortgagors on taking fresh account between the  parties\nand directing. payments by one party to the other.\nThe  Saurashtra\t Land Reforms Act aimed\t at  regulating\t the\nrelationship of persons in position of Landholders and their\ntenants, and to enable the tenants to become the real owners\nof the soil under direct tenancy from the State.  It was not\nmeant  to extinguish or affect the rights of Landholders  as\nmortgagors  unless  the\t persons in  occupation\t had  become\ntenants either by contract or by operation of law.\nNo  adjudication of the rights of the debtors and  creditors\ninter  se was done.  All that the Special Mamlatdar  decided\nand  had jurisdiction to decide under the Land\tReforms\t Act\nwas  whether  the  respondents\tcould  be  given   occupancy\ncertificates  or allotted any land Gharkhed and the  Special\nMamlatdar  merely ordered that the lands being\tKhalsa\tfull\nassessment had to be taken in respect of them and there\t was\nno  need  to grant occupancy rights.  In order to  get\tsuch\noccupancy  rights the appellants had to show that  they\t had\nbecome tenants which they could not be under the  provisions\nof s. 6 of the Land Reforms Act.  The fact that they had all\nalong paid the revenue and other dues to the State, if\tany,\nwould  not clothe them with tenancy rights.  That apart,  it\nhas  not  been shown that the respondents were\tawarded\t any\ncompensation in respect of the\n691\nKhalsa\tlands  given  in mortgage to  the  appellants.\t The\noccupancy  certificates,  if  any,  given  by  the   Special\nMamlatdar  to the appellants could not under the  provisions\nof  the\t Land  Reforms\tAct  extinguish\t the  title  of\t the\nrespondents. [695 H; 696 H]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 123 and 124<br \/>\nof 1966.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeals by special leave from the judgments and orders dated<br \/>\nApril  28, 1965 of the Gujarat High Court in Civil  Revision<br \/>\nApplications Nos. 88 and 93 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n<p>P.   B.\t Patwari,  K.  L. Hathi, S. K.\tBagga  and  Sureshta<br \/>\nBagga, for the appellants.\n<\/p>\n<p>P. M. Rawal and P. C. Bhartari, for the respondents.<br \/>\nThe Judgment of the Court was delivered by<br \/>\nMitter, J. These are two appeals by special leave from judg-<br \/>\nments  of  the Gujarat High Court dated April  28,  1965  in<br \/>\nCivil  Revision Applications No. 88 and 93 of 1961.  As\t the<br \/>\nquestions  involved in both the applications were the  same,<br \/>\nthe High Court delivered the main judgment in Civil Revision<br \/>\nApplication  No.  88\/1961 and referred to the  same  in\t its<br \/>\njudgment in Civil Revision Application No. 93 of 1961.\t The<br \/>\ntwo  applications  in the High Court arose  out\t of  certain<br \/>\nproceedings under the Saurashtra Agricultural Debtors Relief<br \/>\nAct.\tThe  applicants\t before\t the  High  Court  and\t the<br \/>\nappellants  before this Court were mortgagees in  possession<br \/>\nof  certain  lands  belonging to the  debtors  who  are\t now<br \/>\nrepresented  by the respondents.  The main  question  before<br \/>\nthe High Court was and before us is, whether the debtors had<br \/>\nlost all their interest in the lands mortgaged by reason  of<br \/>\nthe  operation\tof the Saurashtra Land Reforms Act,  XXV  of<br \/>\n1951 and as such were not competent to make an\tapplication<br \/>\nunder the Saurashtra Agricultural Debtors Relief Act,  1954.<br \/>\nHereinafter  the  two Acts will be referred to as  the\tLand<br \/>\nReforms Act and the Debtors Relief Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>It is not necessary to deal separately with the facts in the<br \/>\ntwo appeals as the course of proceedings in both cases\twere<br \/>\nsimilar\t giving\t rise  to  common  questions  of  law.\t  We<br \/>\ntherefore  propose  to\ttake  note of  the  facts  in  Civil<br \/>\nRevision  Application  No.  88\tof  1961.   The\t  creditors,<br \/>\nappellants before us, were in possession of the\t properties-<br \/>\nthe  subject matter of litigation, under two mortgage  deeds<br \/>\nof  Samvat years 1997 and 1999.\t The first mortgage was\t for<br \/>\nRs.  991  and the second for Rs, 1,011 The  mortgagees\twere<br \/>\nwith  possession and the mortgagee have\t been  appropriating<br \/>\nthe  income of the usufruct thereof for the last  50  years.<br \/>\nThere is nothing to show whether they were under a liability<br \/>\nunder the documents of mortgage to pay the revenue and other<br \/>\ndues to the State but there is no dispute that they have<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">692<\/span><br \/>\nbeen  doing so for many years past.  The lands were  situate<br \/>\nin  Bajana  State with its own peculiar land  tenure  system<br \/>\nknown as the Girasdari system.\n<\/p>\n<p>The Land Reforms Act which came into force on July 23,\t1951<br \/>\npurported  to effect important and far-reaching\t changes  in<br \/>\nthe  said  system.  The preamble to the Act shows  that\t its<br \/>\nobject\twas &#8220;the improvement of land revenue  administration<br \/>\nand  for ultimately putting an end to the Girasdari  system&#8221;<br \/>\nand the regulation of the relationship between the Girasdars<br \/>\nand their tenants, to enable the latter to become  occupants<br \/>\nof  the land held by them and to provide for the payment  of<br \/>\ncompensation  to  the Girasdars for  the  extinguishment  of<br \/>\ntheir  rights.\tIt will be noted at once that the Act  aimed<br \/>\nat regulating the relationship of persons in the position of<br \/>\nlandholders  and their tenants and to enable the tenants  to<br \/>\nbecome the real owners of the soil under direct tenancy from<br \/>\nthe  State.   It was not meant to extinguish or\t affect\t the<br \/>\nrights of the landholders as mortgagors unless the  persons-<br \/>\nin  occupation had become tenants either by contract  or  by<br \/>\noperation of law.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  Act came into force in the whole of Saurashtra area  of<br \/>\nthe  State of Gujarat.\tUnder S. 2(15) &#8216;Girasdar&#8217; meant\t any<br \/>\ntalukdar, bhagdar, bhayat, cadet or mul-girasia, etc.  Under<br \/>\nS.  2(13) &#8216;estate&#8217; meant all land of whatever\tdescription<br \/>\nheld by a Girasdar including uncultivable waste whether used<br \/>\nfor  the purpose of agriculture or not and &#8216;Gharkhed&#8217;  meant<br \/>\nany  land reserved by or allotted to a Girasdar\t before\t the<br \/>\n20th May 1950 or for being cultivated personally and in\t his<br \/>\npersonal  cultivation.\t A tenant under S.  2(30)  meant  an<br \/>\nagriculturist  who held land on lease from a Girasdar  or  a<br \/>\nperson\tclaiming through&#8217; him and included a person who\t was<br \/>\ndeemed\tto  be\ta tenant under the provisions  of  the\tAct.<br \/>\nUnder S. 3 the provisions of the Act were<br \/>\nto   have  effect  notwithstanding   anything\tinconsistent<br \/>\ntherewith  contained in any other law for the time being  in<br \/>\nforce.\t Section  4  Provided that  &#8220;all  land\tof  whatever<br \/>\ndescription  held  by Girasdar is and shall continue  to  be<br \/>\nliable\tto  the\t payment of land revenue  to  the  State  of<br \/>\nGujarat.&#8221;  Section 5 classified Girasdars according  to\t the<br \/>\nmeasure\t of  their  holding  and under\tcl.  (c)  thereof  a<br \/>\nGirasdar  was  to  belong to class C if the  total  area  of<br \/>\nagricultural  land  comprised in his estate did\t not  exceed<br \/>\nAct.  120-00  Section  6(1) of the Act laid  down  that\t any<br \/>\nperson who was lawfully cultivating any land belonging to  a<br \/>\nGirasdar was to be deemed for the purposes of the Act to  be<br \/>\nthe tenant if he was not a member of the Girasdars family or<br \/>\na  servant  on wages payable in cash or in kind\t etc.  or  a<br \/>\nmortgagee  in,\tpossession.   The Explanation  to  the\tsub-<br \/>\nsection\t however  shows\t that a person\twho  was  otherwise,<br \/>\ndeemed\tto be a tenant was not to cease to be such  only  on<br \/>\nthe<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">693<\/span><br \/>\nground\tthat he was a mortgagee in possession.\tUnder S.  19<br \/>\nit  was open to any Girasdar to apply to the  Mamlatdar\t for<br \/>\nthe allotment to him of land for personal cultivation within<br \/>\na certain fixed time.  Such application had to be made in  a<br \/>\nspecified  form\t giving\t the  prescribed  particulars.\t The<br \/>\napplicant  had to show inter alia, the area and location  of<br \/>\nthe  land in respect of which the allotment was prayed\tfor,<br \/>\nthe  right  under  which  he  claimed  the  land  and\tfull<br \/>\nparticulars  of his estate as also the area of khalsa  land,<br \/>\nif  any, in his possession.  Under S. 20 of the Act  it\t was<br \/>\nfor  the Mamlatdar to issue notice to the tenant or  tenants<br \/>\nconcerned on receipt-of an application under S. 19 and\tmake<br \/>\nan enquiry in the prescribed manner after giving the parties<br \/>\nan  opportunity\t of  being heard.  After  such\tinquiry\t the<br \/>\nMamlatdar was required to pass an order making an  allotment<br \/>\nto  the\t Girasdar of such land as may be  specified  in\t the<br \/>\norder  and  this  was  to be followed by  the  issue  of  an<br \/>\noccupancy  certificate\tto  a Girasdar\tin  respect  of\t his<br \/>\nGharkhed  and  the land, if any, allotted to him  under\t the<br \/>\nsection.   Under  sub-S.  (4)  no  Girasdar  was  to  obtain<br \/>\npossession of any land held by a tenant except in accordance<br \/>\nwith the order under the section.  Section 24 laid down\t the<br \/>\ntotal area of the holding which a C class Girasdar could  be<br \/>\nallotted  for  personal\t cultivation.\tSub-s.\t(2)  of\t the<br \/>\nsection\t provided  that\t a C class  Girasdar  could  not  be<br \/>\nallotted  any  khalsa  land  if it was\theld  by  a  tenant.<br \/>\nChapter\t V  containing\tsections  31  to  41  provided\t for<br \/>\nacquisition  of occupancy rights by tenants and S.  31\tlaid<br \/>\ndown  the  consequences which were to issue in the  wake  of<br \/>\ngrant  of occupancy certificates.  A tenant who was  granted<br \/>\nsuch  a\t certificate  was to be free of\t all  relations\t and<br \/>\nobligations as tenant to the Girasdar.\tThe Girasdar in\t his<br \/>\nturn was to be entitled to receive and be paid\tcompensation<br \/>\nas  provided  in the Act.  Under S. 36 the right.  tide\t and<br \/>\ninterest of the Girasdar in respect of an occupancy  holding<br \/>\nwere  to be deemed to have been extinguished on the  payment<br \/>\nby  the Government of the last instalment  of  compensation.<br \/>\nThe  functions of a Mamlatdar are laid down in S. 46 of\t the<br \/>\nAct.   It was for him to decide inter alia what land  should<br \/>\nbe  allotted to a Girasdar for personal cultivation  and  to<br \/>\nmake  such allotment, to decide whether a person was or\t was<br \/>\nnot  tenant, to determine whether a tenancy shall be  termi-<br \/>\nnated  under S. 12 and many other matters.  Under  s.51.  an<br \/>\nappeal\tlay  to\t the  Collector against\t any  order  of\t the<br \/>\nMamlatdar.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  above analysis of the relevant provisions of  the\tLand<br \/>\nReforms Act amply demonstrates the manner in which a  change<br \/>\nwas  to\t be brought about in the  relationship\tbetween\t the<br \/>\nGirasdar  and  his tenants and the rights  which  they\twere<br \/>\nrespectively  to  acquire under the orders  of\tthe  Special<br \/>\nMamlatdar.    The  said\t Officer  had  no  jurisdiction\t  to<br \/>\nterminate any rights under mortgage,<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">694<\/span><br \/>\nThe  full  text\t of  the  order\t of  the  Mamlatdar  on\t the<br \/>\napplication of the Girasdars (the respondents to the appeal)<br \/>\nis not before us.  The copy of the order on the respondents&#8217;<br \/>\napplication  marked Ex. 8\/1 bearing date 16th  January\t1954<br \/>\nwas  handed  over  to us.  It  appears\ttherefrom  that\t the<br \/>\nGirasdar  was allowed to keep as Gharkhed certain  lands  by<br \/>\npaying\tsix  times the assessment in the treasury  but\twith<br \/>\nregard\tto  S.\tNos. 684 arid 685 (the lands  given  to\t the<br \/>\nmortgagees) the same were held by the Mamlatdar to be khalsa<br \/>\nand  full assessment thereof was ordered to be\ttaken.\t The<br \/>\nMamlatdar further noted that there was no need to grant\t any<br \/>\noccupancy rights.\n<\/p>\n<p>On  May\t 2, 1955 the respondents applied for  adjustment  of<br \/>\ntheir debt to the Civil Judge exercising jurisdiction  under<br \/>\nthe  Debtors Relief Act.  The creditors relied on the  order<br \/>\nof  the Special Mamlatdar declaring the lands as  Khalsa  as<br \/>\nfortified  by  the decision of the Bhayati court  of  Bajana<br \/>\nState.\tIt was contended that the lands having been declared<br \/>\nkhalsa the debtors had lost their rights therein.   Reliance<br \/>\nwas  also  placed  on  Forms 7 and  8  by  counsel  for\t the<br \/>\nappellants to show that his clients had acquired proprietary<br \/>\nrights\tin  the said khalsa lands.  According to  the  Civil<br \/>\nJudge  the judgment of the Bhayati court had merely  decided<br \/>\nthat the Bajana State had &#8216;no title or interest in the\tland<br \/>\nin question and that the Jats Mul-Girasdars were independent<br \/>\nproprietors thereof.  The Judge however remarked that it was<br \/>\nnot  for the Special Mamlatdar to decide any question as  to<br \/>\ntitle and he had merely ordered recovery of full  assessment<br \/>\nfrom  the  persons in actual possession and this in  no\t way<br \/>\nvested any title in the creditors.  In the result the  Civil<br \/>\nJudge  directed the restoration of the lands to the  debtors<br \/>\nsubject to certain limitations and conditions.<br \/>\nThe  creditors\twent up in appeal to  the  Assistant  Judge,<br \/>\nSurendranagar.\tThere it was contended on their behalf\tthat<br \/>\nthe  mortgages\thad been extinguished by the  title  of\t the<br \/>\nparamount power and on the date of the application under the<br \/>\nDebtors Relief Act there was no subsisting mortgage  between<br \/>\nthem  and  the\trespondents.  Reliance\twas  placed  on\t the<br \/>\ndecision  of the Special Mamlatdar declaring the land to  be<br \/>\nkhalsa land as extinguishing the mortgages by forfeiture  of<br \/>\nthe  land to the State.\t The Assistant Judge dealt with\t the<br \/>\nquestion at some length and came to the conclusion that\t the<br \/>\nmortgages  bad not been extinguished and not  being  tenants<br \/>\nwithin the meaning of s. 6 the creditors could not have\t got<br \/>\nan  occupancy certificate in respect of the lands  in  their<br \/>\npossession.   He  further stressed on the  decision  of\t the<br \/>\nSpecial\t Mamlatdar to show that only the liability  for\t the<br \/>\nfull  assessment  of  the lands was  indicated\twithout\t any<br \/>\ndisturbance  to the rights inter se. between  the  mortgagor<br \/>\nand  the  mortgagees.\tDealing, with the  question  of\t the<br \/>\nadvances made and the amounts<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">695<\/span><br \/>\nstill due to the creditors, it was ordered that the  debtors<br \/>\nshould pay Rs. 1,698\/- in twelve yearly instalments and\t the<br \/>\naward was directed to be modified accordingly.<br \/>\nThe matter was then taken up by way of Civil Revision to the<br \/>\nHigh  Court  of\t Gujarat.  The High  Court  arrived  at\t the<br \/>\nfollowing conclusions :-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (a)   The decision of the Bhayati court merely<br \/>\n\t      declared\tthat  the  State  was  entitled\t  to<br \/>\n\t      recover taxes of various kinds from the  lands<br \/>\n\t      in possession of tenants or mortgagees.  There<br \/>\n\t      was  no decision that the lands in  possession<br \/>\n\t      of  the  mortgagees were\tconfiscated  to\t the<br \/>\n\t      State.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (b)   The\t  Special  Mamlatdar  rejected\t the<br \/>\n\t      application  of the debtors and  directed\t the<br \/>\n\t      lands in possession of the different creditors<br \/>\n\t      to be treated as Government lands as according<br \/>\n\t      to  him  the  decision of\t the  Bhayati  court<br \/>\n\t      amounted\tto a forfeiture of the lands by\t the<br \/>\n\t      Bajana State.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>\t      (c)   It\t was  not  necessary  to  test\t the<br \/>\n\t      correctness  of  the decision of\tthe  Special<br \/>\n\t      Mamlatdar as in view of the provisions in\t the<br \/>\n\t      Debtors Relief Act which was an Act subsequent<br \/>\n\t      to the Land Reforms Act the provisions of\t the<br \/>\n\t      latter Act were to prevail.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>In  the\t result\t the High Court affirmed the  order  of\t the<br \/>\nAssistant Judge in appeal directing possession to be  handed<br \/>\nover to the debtors.\n<\/p>\n<p>Before\tus  great  stress was laid on the  decision  of\t the<br \/>\nSpecial\t Mamlatdar  and it was argued that  subject  to\t any<br \/>\nappeal\tfrom  his  order his decision  was  binding  on\t the<br \/>\nparties\t and not having gone up in appeal from the order  of<br \/>\nthe  Special Mamlatdar the debtors could not be\t allowed  to<br \/>\nagitate\t their rights to the land ignoring the\tsaid  order.<br \/>\nWe  have  not before us the full text of the  order  of\t the<br \/>\nSpecial\t Mamlatdar  relied on by the appellants nor  are  we<br \/>\nsatisfied from copies of form 7 prescribed under Rule 81  of<br \/>\nthe Rules promulgated under the Land Reforms Act that  there<br \/>\nwas  any adjudication of the rights of the debtors  and\t the<br \/>\ncreditors  inter  se.\tIn our view  all  that\tthe  Special<br \/>\nMamlatdar  decided and had jurisdiction to decide under\t the<br \/>\nAct  was,  whether  the debtors\t could\tbe  given  occupancy<br \/>\ncertificates  or allotted any land Gharkhed and the  Special<br \/>\nMamlatdar  merely ordered that the lands being\tkhalsa\tfull<br \/>\nassesment had to &#8216;be, taken in respect of them and there was<br \/>\nno  need  to grant occupancy rights.  In order to  get\tsuch<br \/>\noccupancy rights the creditors had to show that they had<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">696<\/span><br \/>\nbecome\ttenants which Obviously they could not be under\t the<br \/>\nprovisions  of S. 6 of the Land Reforms Act.  The fact\tthat<br \/>\nthey  had all along paid the revenue and other dues  to\t the<br \/>\nState,\tif any, would not clothe them with the right of\t the<br \/>\ntenants.   Under S. 76(c) of the Transfer of Property Act  a<br \/>\nmortgagee  in possession must, in the absence of a  contract<br \/>\nto  the contrary out of the income of the property, pay\t the<br \/>\nGovernment revenue, all other charges of a public nature and<br \/>\nall  rent  accruing  due  in  respect  thereof\tduring\tsuch<br \/>\npossession.  We do not know whether there was a contract  to<br \/>\nthe  contrary and whether the mortgagors had  covenanted  to<br \/>\npay  the rent and the revenue.\tBut even if they  could\t not<br \/>\nmeet the revenue and other State dues out of the income\t and<br \/>\npaid the same out of their own pockets in order to save\t the<br \/>\nsecurity,  the mortgagees were only entitled under s.  72(b)<br \/>\nof  the Transfer of Property Act to add the amount  to\tthe<br \/>\nmortgage  money.  They\tcould not by  paying  such  rent  or<br \/>\nrevenue acquire a title in    derogation  of the  rights  of<br \/>\nthe mortgagors and the payments, if\tany, are to be taken<br \/>\ninto  account  when  the  mortgagors  seek  to\tredeem\t the<br \/>\nproperty.\n<\/p>\n<p>That  apart,  it has not been shown to us that\tthe  debtors<br \/>\nwere awarded any compensation in respect of the khalsa lands<br \/>\ngiven\tin  mortgage  to  the  appellants.   The   occupancy<br \/>\ncertificates, if any, given by the Special Mamlatdar to\t the<br \/>\nappellants  cannot under the provisions of the Land  Reforms<br \/>\nAct  extinguish the title of the mortgagors.   Whether\tthe:<br \/>\nmortgagors  as\tC class Girasdars can be allowed  to  retain<br \/>\nland  in  excess  of the limits specified  in  the  Act\t and<br \/>\nwhether as a result of the restoration of the lands to\tthem<br \/>\nby  the award such limit will be exceeded in this case,\t are<br \/>\nnot  questions\tfor  us\t to  consider.\t The  right  of\t the<br \/>\nmortgagors not being extinguished under any provision of law<br \/>\nto  which our attention was drawn, no, fault can  be  found,<br \/>\nwith  the award is finally modified by the judgment  of\t the<br \/>\nAssistant  Judge and effect must be given thereto.   In\t our<br \/>\nview, it is not necessary to consider the point canvassed at<br \/>\nlength before the High Court and dealt with in the  judgment<br \/>\nof  the\t said  court as to whether  the\t Provisions  of\t the<br \/>\nDebtors Relief Act over-ride those in the Land Reforms\tAct.<br \/>\nThe object of the two Acts are different.  The object of the<br \/>\nLand  Reforms Act. as already noted, is the  improvement  of<br \/>\nthe  land revenue administration and outline an end to\tthe<br \/>\nGirasdari  system and granting of occupancy rights  to\tthe,<br \/>\nGirasdars and \/or their, tenants, whereas the Debtors Relief<br \/>\nAct governs the rights of the debtors and creditors inter se<br \/>\ninter alia by  scaling\tdown  the debits and  providing\t for<br \/>\nrestoration of their Pr to debtors.  In our view, the  right<br \/>\nof the debtors in this case were not extinguished under\t the<br \/>\nLand  Reforms  Act and it was open to the  court  exercising<br \/>\njurisdiction   under  the Debtors Relief Act to\t scale\tdown<br \/>\ntile debt and provide for resto-\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">697<\/span><\/p>\n<p>ration\tof the land in possession of the mortgagees  to\t the<br \/>\nmortgagors on taking fresh accounts between the parties\t and<br \/>\ndirecting  payments  by one party to the other as  has\tbeen<br \/>\ndone in this case.\n<\/p>\n<p>The appeals therefore fail and are dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n<pre>Y.P.\t\t    Appeal dismissed.\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">698<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Patel Bhuder Mavji Etc vs Jat Mamdaji Kalaji (Deceased) &#8230; on 13 February, 1969 Equivalent citations: 1969 AIR 1196, 1969 SCR (3) 690 Author: G Mitter Bench: Mitter, G.K. PETITIONER: PATEL BHUDER MAVJI ETC. Vs. RESPONDENT: JAT MAMDAJI KALAJI (DECEASED) THROUGH L. Rs.JAT SAHEB KHAN M DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/02\/1969 BENCH: [&hellip;]<\/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-192303","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Patel Bhuder Mavji Etc vs Jat Mamdaji Kalaji (Deceased) ... on 13 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Patel Bhuder Mavji Etc vs Jat Mamdaji Kalaji (Deceased) ... on 13 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1969-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-04-18T06:26:31+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=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Patel Bhuder Mavji Etc vs Jat Mamdaji Kalaji (Deceased) &#8230; on 13 February, 1969\",\"datePublished\":\"1969-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-18T06:26:31+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969\"},\"wordCount\":2900,\"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\\\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969\",\"name\":\"Patel Bhuder Mavji Etc vs Jat Mamdaji Kalaji (Deceased) ... on 13 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1969-02-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-04-18T06:26:31+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Patel Bhuder Mavji Etc vs Jat Mamdaji Kalaji (Deceased) &#8230; on 13 February, 1969\"}]},{\"@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":"Patel Bhuder Mavji Etc vs Jat Mamdaji Kalaji (Deceased) ... on 13 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Patel Bhuder Mavji Etc vs Jat Mamdaji Kalaji (Deceased) ... on 13 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1969-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-04-18T06:26:31+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":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Patel Bhuder Mavji Etc vs Jat Mamdaji Kalaji (Deceased) &#8230; on 13 February, 1969","datePublished":"1969-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-18T06:26:31+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969"},"wordCount":2900,"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\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969","name":"Patel Bhuder Mavji Etc vs Jat Mamdaji Kalaji (Deceased) ... on 13 February, 1969 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1969-02-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-04-18T06:26:31+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/patel-bhuder-mavji-etc-vs-jat-mamdaji-kalaji-deceased-on-13-february-1969#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Patel Bhuder Mavji Etc vs Jat Mamdaji Kalaji (Deceased) &#8230; on 13 February, 1969"}]},{"@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\/192303","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=192303"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/192303\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=192303"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=192303"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=192303"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}