{"id":208611,"date":"1952-12-22T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1952-12-21T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952"},"modified":"2018-09-03T01:34:20","modified_gmt":"2018-09-02T20:04:20","slug":"chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952","title":{"rendered":"Chhotabrai Jethabai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 22 December, 1952"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Chhotabrai Jethabai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 22 December, 1952<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 108, \t\t 1953 SCR 476<\/div>\n
Author: N C Aiyar<\/div>\n
Bench: Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nCHHOTABRAI JETHABAI PATEL AND CO.\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nTHE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH(and other cases)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n22\/12\/1952\n\nBENCH:\nAIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA\nBENCH:\nAIYAR, N. CHANDRASEKHARA\nMAHAJAN, MEHR CHAND\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\n\nCITATION:\n 1953 AIR  108\t\t  1953 SCR  476\n CITATOR INFO :\n E&D\t    1956 SC  17\t (12)\n D\t    1958 SC 532\t (5,23,24,25)\n NF\t    1959 SC 735\t (28)\n O\t    1962 SC1916\t (4,5,12)\n O\t    1966 SC1637\t (2,7,8,9,10)\n RF\t    1968 SC1218\t (2,4)\n E\t    1970 SC 706\t (5,6,7,8)\n R\t    1976 SC1813\t (13)\n RF\t    1978 SC1635\t (20)\n R\t    1985 SC1293\t (107,112,114,115,124,127)\n\n\nACT:\nMadhya\tPradesh\t Abolition of Proprietary  Rights  (Estates,\nMahals\tand  Alienated Lands) Act, 1950, Ss.  3,  4  -Rights\nunder contracts with proprietors for plucking tendu  leaves,\ncollecting  lac, cutting timber etc.-Whether vest in  State-\nNature\tof such contracts -Indian Sale of Goods Act (III  of\n1930) S. 4 (3) -\"Future goods\", meaning of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n  The\tMadhya\tPradesh\t Abolition  of\tProprietary   Rights\n(Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act of 1950 put an end to\nall  proprietary  rights in estates,  mahals  and  alienated\nvillages situated in the State and vested them in the  State\nfor  the purposes of the State, free from all  encumbrances.\nThe petitioners, who had entered into various contracts\t and\nagreements  with the proprietors of the estates\t before\t the\ndate on which the estates vested in the State under the\t Act\n(and,some  of them even before the 16th March,\t1950)  under\nwhich  they were entitled to pluck, collect and\t carry\taway\ntendu leaves, to cultivate, culture and acquire lac, and  to\nout  and  carry away teak and timber and  other\t species  of\ntrees,\tapplied for writs under art 32 of  the\tConstitution\nprohibiting the State from interfering with the rights\tthey\nhad, acquired under the contracts with the proprietors:\nHeld,  (i) On construction of the contracts in\ta  question,\nthat  the  contracts  were in essence  and  effect  licenses\ngranted\t to  the petitioners to cut, gather and\t carry\taway\nproduce\t in the shape of tendu leaves, lac, timber, or\twood\nand  the  petitioners were neither proprietors\tnor  persons\nhaving\tany interest in the proprietary rights\tthrough\t the\nproprietors, within the meaning of the Act;\n(ii) The  rights  of the petitioners were  not\tencumbrances\nwithin the meaning of the expression \"free from encumbrances\nin s. 3 . 1) of the Act and the petitioners were entitled to\na  writ\t against  the  State  prohibiting  the\tState\tfrom\ninterfering  with  the rights of the petitioners  under\t the\ncontracts which they had entered into with the proprietors.\nMohanlal  Hargovind  v. Commissioner  of  Income-tax,  C.P,&\nBerar (I.L.R. [19491 Nag. 892) referred to.\nHeld  also,  that s. 4 (3) of the Indian Sale of  Goods\t Act\nwhich  lays flown that in the case of sale of  future  goods\nthe contract\n477\namounts\t only to an agreement to sell did not apply  to\t the\ncontracts in the present case as \"future goods\" are  defined\nin  the Act as meaning goods to be manufactured or  produced\nor acquired by the seller after making the contract of sale.\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
ORIGINAL  JURISDICTION: Petition is Nos. 232,233, 286,\t309,
\n320, 351, 319, 350, 354 and 490 of 1951.  Applications under
\narticle\t 32  of the Constitution for writs  to\tenforce\t the
\nfundamental rights of the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n
C.   K.\t Daphtar  (R.\tM. Hajarnavis,\twith  him)  for\t the
\npetitioner in Petition No. 232.\n<\/p>\n
M.   C. Setalvad (G.  N. Joshi and B. M. Hajarnavis, with him)
\nfor the petitioner: in Petition No. 233.\n<\/p>\n
B.   M. Hajarnavis for the petitioners in Petitions Nos. 286,
\n309 and 320.\n<\/p>\n
V.   N. Swami for the petitioners in Petitions Nos., 350 and\n<\/p>\n
351.
\nN.   S. Bindra (B.  S. Narula with him) for the\t petitioners
\nin Petitions Nos.’319, 354 and 490.\n<\/p>\n
T.   L. Shivde, Advocate-General of Madhya Pradesh, for\t the
\nrespondent  in\tall  the  petitions,  the  State  of  Madhya
\nPradesh.\n<\/p>\n
1962.  December 22.  The Judgment of the Court was delivered
\nby
\nCHANDRASEKHARA AIYAR J.-These are petitions under article 32
\nof  the\t Constitution of India for directions or  orders  or
\nwrits  to enforce the fundaments rights, of the\t petitioners
\nto  property  by prohibiting, the respondent, the  State  of
\nMadhya\tPradesh, from enforcing their alleged  rights  under
\nthe Madhya Pradesh Abolition of Proprietary Rights
\nAct, 1950.\n<\/p>\n
The   several\tpetitioners  entered  into   contracts\t and
\nagreements with the previous proprietors of certain  estates
\nand mahals in the State under which it is said they acquired
\nthe rights to pluck, collect and carry away tendu leaves, to
\ncultivate, culture and acquire lac and to cut and carry away
\nteak  and timber and miscellaneous special of  trees  called
\nhardwood and
\n478<\/span>
\nbamboos.  The contracts and agreements are in ‘writing\tsome
\nof  them  are registered.  There is no dispute\tabout  their
\ngenuineness,  and  it  has not been alleged  that  they\t are
\n‘collusive or fraudulent transactions.\tTheir dates and\t the
\nseveral\t sums of money paid as consideration are set out  in
\nthe petitions.\tThe petitioners allege that they have  spent
\nlarge sums of money in the exercise of their rights, and his
\nfact too is not controverted.\n<\/p>\n
Petitions Nos. 232, 233, 286, 309 and 320 of 1951 relate  to
\ntendu leaves which grow in shrub jungles and which are\tused
\nin  the manufacture of beedis or country made cigarettes,  a
\nvery  extensive and competitive business carried on by\tsome
\nof  the petitioners involving an outlay of one to two  lakhs
\nof  rupees in some cases.  For instance, 406  contracts\t are
\ninvolved  in  Petition No. 232 of 1951 ;  the  consideration
\npaid  comes to Rs. 1,65,385 and the expenses are alleged  to
\nbe  in the region of Rs. 1,90,000.  In Petition No.  233  of
\n1951  there  are 785 contracts; the purchase  money  is\t Rs.
\n1,10,605 and the outlay byway of ‘expenses is said to be Rs.
\n50,000.\n<\/p>\n
Petition  No.  319  of\t1951  relates  to  the\tculture\t and
\ncultivation  of\t lac, and there are several lease  deeds  of
\ndifferent  dates enuring for different periods; two of\tthem
\ngo up to the years 1966 and 1967.\n<\/p>\n
Teak,,\ttimber and hardwood form the subject-matter  of\t the
\nrights\tinvolved  in  Petition\tNo.  350  of  1951  and\t the
\nregistered lease deed is dated 8th October, 1949, and it  is
\nfor a term of ten years.\n<\/p>\n
Petition   No.\t351  of\t 1952  involves\t tendu\tleaves\t and
\nmiscellaneous forest produce and timber.
\nPetition  No.  354 of 1951 relates to  bamboo  forests,\t and
\nPetition No. 490 of 1951 to hardwood and bamboo.
\nThe  contentions  of  the petitioners are  mainly  three  in
\nnumber.\t  They\tsay that the rights acquired by\t them  under
\nthese  contracts and agreements were got before the  passing
\nof the Madhya Pradesh Abolition
\n\t\t\t   479<\/span>
\nof  Proprietary Rights Act, 1950, and that  the\t legislation
\ntherefore does not affect them.\t It is urged next that\tthey
\nare  not  proprietors  within the meaning  of  the  Act\t and
\nconsequently  the Act does not apply to them.\tLastly,\t the
\nquestion  is raised that the Act itself is ultra  vires,  as
\nmany  of  its material provisions offend  their\t fundamental
\nrights guaranteed under the Constitution.
\nThe full title of the Act is the ” Madhya Pradesh, Abolition
\nof  Proprietary\t Rights (Estates, Mahals,  Alienated  Lands)
\nAct,  1950  “, and it is Madhya Pradesh Act I of  1951.\t  It
\ncame  into  force on 26th January, 1951.  On the  very\tnext
\nday,  there  was a notification under section 3 of  the\t Act
\nputting an end to all proprietary rights in estates,  mahals
\nand alienated villages and vesting the same in the State for
\nthe  purposes  of the State free of  all  encumbrances\twith
\neffect from 31st March, 1952.\n<\/p>\n
The  validity  of  the Act was questioned  by  the  affected
\nproprietors in Visheshwar Rao v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
\n(1) before this\t    Court, and the Act was held to be valid.
\nThe petitioners are concluded.\n<\/p>\n
    We have to consider only the other two points     raised
\non behalf of the petitioners.It is clear from the provisions
\nin the impugned Act that only those rights of the proprietor
\nvest in the State which the proprietor had on the  specified
\ndate.\tSection\t 3 provides that on and from a\tdate  to  be
\nspecified  by  a notification by the State  Government,\t all
\nproprietary  rights  in\t an estate or  mahal  vesting  in  a
\nproprietor  shall  pass from him to and vest in\t the  State.
\nThe  consequences of vesting are given in section 4  of\t the
\nAct,  and it is provided that the vesting will\ttake  place,
\nnotwithstanding\t anything. contained in any contract,  grant
\nor document or in any other law for the time being in  force
\nand save as otherwise provided in this Act.  But this  again
\ndeals  only  with  the rights existing on the  date  of\t the
\nnotification the section is not retrospective.
\n(1)  [1952] S.C.R. 1029.\n<\/p>\n
480<\/span><\/p>\n
Clause\t(a) speaks of all rights,title and interest  vesting
\nin  the\t proprietor or any person having  interest  in\tsuch
\npropreitory right through the proprietor.
\nClause (b) is to this effect
\n“all  grants and confirmation Of title of or to land in\t the
\nproperty  so vesting Or Of or, to any right or privilege  in
\nrespect\t of such property orland revenue in respect  thereof
\nshall, whether liable to resumption or not, determine;”
\nThe right or privilege referred to is the right or privilege
\nof  the\t proprietor  or any person having  interest  in\t the
\nproprietary right through the proprietor.
\nClause (c)  is quite clear on the subject; it runs thus:
\n“all  rents  and cossesi in respect of any  holding  in\t the
\nproperty so vesting for any period after the date of vesting
\nand  which.  but for the vesting, would be  payable  to\t the
\nproprietor  shall  vest\t in  and be  payable  to  the  State
\nGovernment…….”\n<\/p>\n
The words ” after the date of vesting ” are important.
\nSub-section (3) of section 4 says
\nNothing\t contained in subsection (1) shall operate as a\t bar
\nto the recovery by the outgoing proprietor of any sum  which
\nbecomes\t due to him-before the date of vesting by virtue  of
\nhis proprietary rights and any such sum shall be recoverable
\nby  him by any- process of law which but for this Act  would
\nbe available to him.”\n<\/p>\n
If the outgoing proprietor is entitled to, recover any\tsums
\nas  quid  pro  quo for what he has  parted  with  under\t the
\ntransfer, it can only be on the basis that the transfer is a
\ngood and valid transaction unaffected by the Act.  Section 6
\nis very material, and it is in these terms’
\n(1)  Except as provided in sub-section (2), the transfer  of
\nany right in the property ‘Which is liable
\n481<\/span>
\nto  vest in the state under this Act made by the  proprietor
\nat any time after the 16th March, 1950, shall,. as from\t the
\ndate of vesting, be void.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  Where  on\tthe. application of the\t transferor  or\t the
\ntransferee,  the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied  that\t any
\ntransfer of property referred to in subsection (1) was\tmade
\nby a proprietor in good faith and in the ordinary course  of
\nvillage management, he may declare that the transfer  shall,
\nnot be void* after the date of vesting.”\n<\/p>\n
The  date,  16th  March, 1950, is  probably  the  date\twhen
\nlegislation on these lines was actively thought of, and sub-
\nsection\t (1) hits at transfers made after this\tdate.\tThis
\nmeans that transfers before that date are not to be regarded
\nas void.  Even in the case of transfers after the said date,
\nsub-section  (2). provides that the Deputy Commissioner\t may
\ndeclare\t that they .are not void after the date of  vesting,
\nprovided  they were made in good faith and in  the  ordinary
\ncourse of management. ,
\nThe scheme of the Act as can be gathered from the provisions
\nreferred  to above makes it reasonably clear  that  whatever
\nwas done before 16th March, 1950, by the proprietors by\t way
\nof  transfer of rights is not to, be disturbed or  affected,
\nand that what vests in the State is what the proprietors had
\noil  the  vesting date.\t If the proprietor  had\t any  rights
\nafter the date of vesting which he could enforce against the
\ntransferee  such  as a lessee or a  licensee,  those  rights
\nwould  no doubt vest in the State.  In all these  petitions,
\nthe  several contracts and, agreements were before the\tdate
\nof  vesting,  and many of them were prior even to  the\t16th
\nMarch,\t1950.  The petitioners had taken possession  of\t the
\nsubject-matter\tof the contracts, namely, tendu leaves,\t lac
\npalsadies,   teak,   timber  and   hardwood,   bamboos\t and
\nmiscellaneous forest produce.\n<\/p>\n
Under the Indian Sale of Goods Act, “goods” include  growing
\ncrops,\tgrass and things attached to or forming part of\t the
\nland,  which are agreed to be severed before sale  or  under
\nthe contract of sale
\n482<\/span>
\nnotwithstanding the -definition of “immovable property ”  in
\nsection 3 (25) of the General Clauses Act of 1897.
\nIn  Petition No. 232 of 1951 two sample agreements  relating
\nto  tendu  leaves  are given as annexures A  and  B  to\t the
\npetitions.   They  may\tbe quoted in  extenso  for  a  clear
\nunderstanding of the nature of the right created.  Exhibit A
\ndated 16th November, 1950, is in these terms:
\n” Receipt written in favour of Seth Chhotabhai Jethbai Patel
\nCompany shop Gondia, and written by Shri Madhavrao Gangadhar
\nRao  Chitnavis\tshop  Itan receipt is written  that  we\t are
\nowners\tof forests of Tendu leaves of Monza  Sawarla  0-12-0
\nMauza  Khatkheda  0-5-0 Mouza Nati Kheda  0-16-0  and  Monza
\nWelwa  0-16-0.\t We have given contract (Theka)\t of  cutting
\nTendu  leaves from these four villages for one year that  is
\ntill  the  end\tof June for Rs. 2,500 out  of  this  we\t had
\nreceived  Rs. 300 on 21st September, 1950, at  Bhandara\t and
\nthe  balance Rs. 2,200 was received from your Bhandara\tshop
\nthrough\t Balubhai.   Nothing remains to be paid to  us.\t You
\nhave a right to coppice the trees.”\n<\/p>\n
The  terms  of\tExhibit B dated 12th  July,  1948,  Emitting
\nunnecessary portions are as follows:\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t year  1948 A.D. theka patra  is  executed  that  in
\nconsideration of the amount received as detailed above I had
\ngiven  the  full tendu leaves jungle for  taking  out  tendu
\nleaves\tfor  five years from 1949 A.D. to 1053 A.D.  I\thave
\nimmediately given possession.  Now you can take tendu leaves
\nof  the tendu leaves forests described above every year\t for
\nfive years till the end of June, 1953.\tYou may coppice\t the
\nplants\tand  take  leaves.  At the end of  June,  1953,\t you
\nshould return my jungle without damage or loss to me.  After
\nthe end of the period it depends upon my will whether or not
\nI  give\t you  the  forests on theka  (again).\tIf  any\t one
\nobstructs you in coppicing or taking away leaves, I will  be
\nresponsible for the damages.  Hence I have executed
\n483<\/span>
\nthis  theka  pathi for five years  for\tconsideration  after
\nreading\t and  understanding.  I agree with it.\t Dated\t12th
\nJuly,  1948, by pen of Waman Sadeshic Amte  Petition  Writer
\nBhandara.”\n<\/p>\n
The  contracts\tand agreements appear to be in\tessence\t and
\neffect\tlicenses granted to the transferees to\tcut,  gather
\nand carry away the produce in the shape of tendu leaves,  or
\nlac, or timber, or wood.\n<\/p>\n
A  similar  agreement  came  up\t for  consideration  by\t the
\nJudicial   Committee  of  the  Privy  Council  in   Mohanlal
\nHargovind  of  Jubbulpore  v.  Commissioner  of\t Income-tax,
\nCentral Provinces and Berar, Nagpur (1) in connection with a
\nquestion  arising  out of the Income-tax Act.  Some  of\t the
\nobservations  contained\t in the judgment  dealing  with\t the
\nnature\tof  such an agreement are useful and may  be  quoted
\nhere :\n<\/p>\n
” The contracts grant no interest in land and no interest in
\nthe trees or plants themselves.\t They are simply and  solely
\ncontracts giving to the grantees the right to pick and carry
\naway  leaves,  which,  of  course,  implies  the  right\t  to
\nappropriate them as their own property.\n<\/p>\n
The small right of cultivation given in the first of the two
\ncontracts is merely ancillary and is of no more significance
\nthan would be e.g., a right to spray a fruit tree en to\t the
\nperson who has bought the crop of apples.  The contracts are
\nshort term contracts.  The picking of the leaves under\tthem
\nhas  to start at once or practically at once and to  proceed
\ncontinuously.”\n<\/p>\n
There  is nothing in the Act to affect the validity  of\t the
\nseveral\t contracts  and\t agreements.   The  petitioner\t are
\nneither\t proprietors  within  the meaning  of  the  Act\t nor
\npersons having any interest in the proprietary right through
\nthe  proprietors.   There is no provision in the  Act  which
\nextinguishes  their  rights in favour of the  State.   ‘What
\nexactly is meant by a ,proprietary right ” under the revenue
\nlaws has been
\n(1).I.L.R. [1949] Nag. 892,
\n63<\/span>
\n484<\/span>
\npointed\t out at page 217 of Volume I of Baden Powell’s\tLand
\nSystems of British India, where he says:\n<\/p>\n
The first thing that will strike the student is the .use  of
\nthe  term ‘ proprietary right’ in these pages and in  Indian
\nRevenue Books generally.  It does not occur in text-books on
\nEnglish\t law  or jurisprudence.\t I presume that the  use  of
\nsuch  a\t phrase\t is due to the ad  feeling  that  we  rarely
\nacknowledge anything like a complete unfettered right vested
\nin any one person.  The interest in the soil has come to  be
\nvirtually shared between two or even more grades, the  cause
\nof  which we just now discussed.  It is true that,  in\tmany
\ncases,\tonly one person is called ‘ landlord ‘ or  ‘  actual
\nproprietor  ‘  but  his right is limited; the  rest  of\t the
\nright,\tso  to speak, is in the hands of the  other  grades,
\neven though they are called ‘tenants’ or by some vague title
\nsuch  as ‘ tenure-holders.’ In many cases, as we have  seen,
\nthis  division of right is accentuated by the use  of  terms
\nlike  sub-proprietor’ or proprietor. of his  holding’.\t The
\n‘proprietary  right seems then a natural expression for\t the
\ninterest  held by a landlord, when that interest is not\t the
\nentire ‘bundle of rights’ (which in the aggregate make up an
\nabsolute or complete estate) but only some of them, the\t re-
\nmainder being enjoyed by other persons.”
\nThe  definitions  given in the Act do not abrogate  or\tvary
\nthis meaning.  The respondent State cannot invoke in its aid
\nsection\t 3,  sub-clause (1) of the Act which speaks  of\t the
\nvestina\t of  proprietary rights free  of  all  encumbrances,
\nbecause\t the rights of the petitioners either as  buyers  or
\nlessees\t or  licensees are not\tencumbrances  as  ordinarily
\nunderstood.   The last part of clause (a) of section  4\t (1)
\nindicates that mortgage debts and charges on the proprietary
\nright are meant by encumbrances.\n<\/p>\n
In  this  view,\t it  becomes  unnecessary  to  consider\t the
\nquestion  as  to when title in the property  passes  to\t the
\ntransferee.   Section 4, sub-section (3) of the Indian\tSale
\nof  Goods  Act which lays down that in the case of  sale  of
\nfuture goods the contract amounts
\n485<\/span>
\nonly to an agreement to sell does not seem to be  applicable
\nto the contracts and agreements here, as the goods are not ”
\nfuture goods ” as defined in subclause (6) of the Act  which
\nstates\tthat they mean goods to be manufactured or  produced
\nor  acquired by the seller after the making of the  contract
\nof  sale.   Benjamin  says  in his  treatise  on  Sale\t(8th
\nEdition) at page 136:\n<\/p>\n
” Things not yet existing which may be sold (that is to say,
\na right to which may be immediately granted) are those which
\nare  said  to have a potential existence,  that\t is,  things
\nwhich are the natural produce, or expected increase of\tsome
\nthing  already owned or possessed by the seller.  A man\t may
\nsell  the crop of hay to be grown in his field, the wool  to
\nbe  clipped from his sheep at a future time, the  milk\tthat
\nhis cows will yield in the coming month, and similar things.
\nOf such things there could be, according to the authorities,
\nan  immediate grant or assignment, whereas there could\tonly
\nbe an agreement to sell where the subject of the contract is
\nsomething  to  be afterwards acquired; as the  wool  of\t any
\nsheep,\tor the milk of any cows, which the seller might\t buy
\nwithin the year, or any goods to which he might obtain title
\nwithin the next six months.”\n<\/p>\n
The  goods covered by the present petitions are goods  which
\nhave  a potential existence, and according to the  decisions
\ndiscussed  by the learned author, there can be a sale  of  a
\npresent\t right\tto  the\t goods as soon\tas  they  come\tinto
\nexistence.  Whether title passes on the date of the contract
\nitself or later is really dependent on the intention of\t the
\nparties,  and  as  already stated, in  these  petitions\t the
\nstipulated consideration has passed from the transferees  to
\nthe proprietors, and possession also has been taken.
\nWe  hold that the respondent has no right to interfere\twith
\nthe  rights of the several petitioners under  the  contracts
\nand  agreements in their favour set out in their  petitions,
\nand  we\t hereby\t issue a writ  prohibiting  the\t State\tfrom
\ninterfering  in any manner whatsoever with the enjoyment  of
\nthose rights by the
\n486<\/span>
\npetitioners.  In cases where the periods under the contracts
\nhave  expired, or where the proprietors have ill to  recover
\nanything from the transferees after he date of vesting,\t the
\nState  will be at perfect liberty to assert and enforce\t its
\nrights\tstanding  in  the shoes\t of  the  proprietors.\t The
\nrespondent will pay the petitioners their respective costs.
\nPetition allowed.\n<\/p>\n
Agent  for the petitioners in Petitions Nos. 232, 233,\t286,
\n309 and 320 : Bajinder Narain.\n<\/p>\n
Agent for the petitioners in Petitions Nos. 360 and 351:  M.
\nS. H. Sastri.\n<\/p>\n
Agent  for  the petitioners in Petitions Nos. 319,  354\t and
\n490: Harbans Singh.\n<\/p>\n
Agent\tfor  the  respondents  in  all\tpetitions:   G.\t  H.
\nRajadhyaksha.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Chhotabrai Jethabai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 22 December, 1952 Equivalent citations: 1953 AIR 108, 1953 SCR 476 Author: N C Aiyar Bench: Aiyar, N. Chandrasekhara PETITIONER: CHHOTABRAI JETHABAI PATEL AND CO. Vs. RESPONDENT: THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH(and other cases) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 22\/12\/1952 […]<\/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-208611","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nChhotabrai Jethabai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And ... on 22 December, 1952 - 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\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chhotabrai Jethabai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And ... on 22 December, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952\" \/>\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=\"1952-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-09-02T20:04:20+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\\\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chhotabrai Jethabai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 22 December, 1952\",\"datePublished\":\"1952-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-02T20:04:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952\"},\"wordCount\":3027,\"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\\\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952\",\"name\":\"Chhotabrai Jethabai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And ... on 22 December, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1952-12-21T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-09-02T20:04:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chhotabrai Jethabai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 22 December, 1952\"}]},{\"@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":"Chhotabrai Jethabai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And ... on 22 December, 1952 - 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\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chhotabrai Jethabai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And ... on 22 December, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1952-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-09-02T20:04:20+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\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chhotabrai Jethabai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 22 December, 1952","datePublished":"1952-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-02T20:04:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952"},"wordCount":3027,"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\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952","name":"Chhotabrai Jethabai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And ... on 22 December, 1952 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1952-12-21T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-09-02T20:04:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chhotabrai-jethabai-patel-and-co-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradeshand-on-22-december-1952#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chhotabrai Jethabai Patel And Co vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh(And … on 22 December, 1952"}]},{"@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\/208611","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=208611"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/208611\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=208611"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=208611"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=208611"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}