PARSANNA Vs. CHOBAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two Second Appeals arising out of two different suits against the same defendant-appellants, decided by the 1st Temp. Civil-Judge, Saharanpur, affirming the decree of the trial Court by which the defen dant's appeals were dismissed, have been filed by the defendants. The suit giving rise to this appeal was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for recovery of Rs. 4. 000/- from the defendants-appellants. The facts of the case in brief are that one Arun Kumar was thebhumidhar of the land in dispute. He executed a sale-deed in respect of certain bhumidhari plots in favour of the defendant- appellants on 13-10-1960 for a consideration of Rs. 1. 296/ -. Defendant-Appellants in their turn executed a sale-deed in favour of the plaintiff-respondents on 1st April, 1963 for a consideration of Rs. 1500/ -. It was stipulated in the sale-deed that in case the plaintiffs have lost possession over any portion of the land covered by the sale-deed, they shall be entitled to recover sale consideration. It appears that the land in dispute was the subject-matter of U. P. Imposition of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 (hereinafter referred to as Act) and the land in dispute was ultimately declared surplus and the possession was taken by the State. Thereafter, the present suit was filed by the plaintiff-respondents for recovery of the sale consideration and the amount of Rs. 1,500/- from the defendants and also the cost of previous litigation. The suit was contested by the defendants on various grounds. The suit was decreed by the learned Munsif for recovery of Rs. 1,500'-only against the defendant- appellants. The defendants preferred an appeal against the decree and judgmjnt of the trial Court, which was dismissed. The defendants have referred this appeal against the decree and judgments of the Courts below. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the sale-deed executed by Arun Kumar to the defendants and subsequent sale-deed executed bv the defendants in favour of the plaintiffs were not void in view of the provisions of the Act, which was in force at that time. The only restriction imposed was that the sale-deed would not be taken into consideration while determining the surplus land of the tenureholder. It was next contended by the learned counsel that it being a compulsory acquisition of land by the State under the Act of the Legislature, the possession having not been lost for any fault or defect in title of the defendant-appellants or their predecessors-in-interest, the suit cannot be decreed. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that it has been clearly provided by the Act that ail transfers made after 20th August, 1959 have to be excluded from consideration. As the land of Arun Kumar was affected by the Act, therefore, aforesaid sale-deeds, which came into existence after 20th August, 1959 were nullity and according to the terms of the sale-deed, the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the sale consideration. During the pendency of the proceedings under the Act in respect of the holdings of Arun Kumar, the original transferee of the land in dispute, the defendants filed objection that the land purchased by them be excluded from the surplus land. But Arun Kumar contested their objection and insisted that the land covered with the sale-deed should be declared as surplus land. The matter came up before this Court at the instance of Arun Kumar and by order of this Court dated 17-1-1969 passed in Civil Misc. Writ No. 683 of 1968- Arun Kumar v. State of Uttar Pradesh, the land covered with the aforesaid sale deeds were declared as surplus land, with the following observations: "it may be that the transferees may enforce the breach of the contract or violation of the terms of the conveyance by a suit for damages or refund of sale consideration or otherwise. But that is not relevant or material for determining the rights of the parties under the Ceiling Act. " All the vendees (both the parties of these appeals) were also party in that writ petition. In Raja Yuvaraj Datt Singh of Oel District Kheri v. Prescribed Autho rity, (1968 A. L. J 292 (FB)), a Full Bench, of this Court observed (301-Second Column) that the Prescribed Authority had no authority to deal with the rights of the transferee. It had to treat the transfer a nullity. The position, thus, is that according to the provisions of the Act all the land covered by the aforesaid sale-deeds have been rightly declared as surplus. There is clear stipulation in the sale-deed that in case the possession of the purchaser is lost, he will be entitled to receive back the sale consideration. In view of these facts, the Courts below have rightly held that the plaintiffs are entitled to recover the sale consideration. It was lastly contended that after the sale-deed was executed, the name oi the plaintiffs was mutated in the revenue papers. Therefore, the compensation was prepared in the name of the plaintiffs during the ceiling proceedings. The plaintiffs are entitled to get back that amount. Therefore, the decree should be subject to that amount and not for the entire sale consideration. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that it has not been proved in this case that the compensation has been prepared in the name of the plaintiffs and that have drawn the amount and further according to them, it was the amount of profits accruing from the land in question as it cannot be taken into consideration in decreeing the plaintiff's claim. There is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiffs had been in posses sion over the land in dispute. They must have been deriving profit out of the land. The compensation awarded by the Ceiling Authority for the surplus land is not for the profit of the laud but is the value of the land itself. Therefore, the view of the Courts below that the compensation was profit of the land, is not correct. However, in this case, it is not proved that whether the compensation had been prepared for the land covered by the aforesaid sale-deeds, If it is prepared in the name of the plaintiffs, they alone will be entitled to receive the same. In that view of the matter, the plaintiffs will not be entitled to receive back the compensation as well as full sale consideration. In view of facts discussed above, I find no force in these appeals, which deserve to be dismissed. In the result, I dismiss the appeals. However, the decree for sale consi deration will be subject to the compensation amount if prepared in the name of the plaintiffs. In the circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. .