KESHAV Vs. DEVI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts in brief are that the suit property consists of agricultural land described as Khewat Khatauni No. 51/85-86, Khasras Nos. 19-25 situated in Muhal Khilra, Tehsil Sundernagar, District Mandi. Undisputedly, one Paddu was the owner of the land who inducted Keshav, the appellant herein as tenant in cultivating possession of the land sometime in the year 1945. Keshav has died during the pendency of these proceedings and is represented by his legal representatives. However, for the sake of convenience we will refer to the late Keshav as "the appellant". Paddu died sometime in the year 1950. He was survived by his widow Smt Achhari Devi and also sons of his cousins who will be referred to hereinafter as "the reversioners". On 7-12- 1950 Smt Achhari executed a registered deed of sale in favour of Keshav and one Titia. Under the sale deed alienation was to the extent of 3/4 in favour of Keshav and to the extent of 1/4 in favour of Titia. Keshav continued in possession of land as before. On 17-6-1956 the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 came into force. On 9-8-1956 the reversioners filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed dated 7-12-1950 executed by Smt Achhari in favour of Keshav and Titia was void inasmuch as what vested in Smt Achhari on 7-12-1950 was only life estate of a widow and she was not entitled to alienate ownership in the suit property to anyone. The trial court dismissed the suit but the suit was decreed in first appeal by the District Judge vide Judgement and decree dated 26-11-1958 whereby the sale deed dated 7-12-1950 was adjudged to be null and void.

(2.) In 1969, Smt Achhari died. On 4-5-1970 the reversioners filed another suit for recovery of possession over the suit land from Keshav. Keshav defended himself by pleading all the relevant facts including the plea that in the event of the sale deed dated 7-12-1950 falling to the ground, he shall continue to hold the land as tenant from late Paddu which tenancy would continue to bind the legal heirs and successors of late Paddu. The trial court decreed the suit for possession. The first appeal preferred by Keshav was allowed and the suit was directed to be dismissed holding that Keshav would continue to remain in possession of the suit land as tenant. The reversioners preferred second appeal to the High Court which has been allowed. The High Court has restored the decree for possession setting aside the Judgement of the first appellate court. The singular reasoning which has prevailed with the High Court is that by virtue of sale dated 7-12-1950 the pre-existing tenancy of Keshav was extinguished by the ownership and tenancy having come to vest in the same person at the same time and by the doctrine of merger the tenancy would stand wiped out and merge into the ownership. The High Court held that once the tenancy had come to an end by merger, it would not revive and, therefore, the tenant Keshav was liable to be evicted. No other aspect of the case has been considered by the High Court.

(3.) Keshav has filed this appeal by special leave.