BALBIR SINGH Vs. INDRA KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Smt. Sukhrani had a share in a bhumidhari Khata. She executed a deed of sale on 4th July, 1958, in respect of certain of its plots. On commencement of consolidation proceedings the vendees filed an objection under Section 9 of the Consolidation of Holdings Act claiming to be recorded as bhumidhars over the plots which were purchased by them. It appears that Smt. Sukhrani had died and her personal heirs contested the claim of the vendees. The consolidation authorities have concurrently found that the sale deed executed by Smt. Sukhrani contravened Section 144 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, and, therefore, vendees did not acquire any title under it. It was also found that Smt. Sukhrani had inherited the bhumidhari holding from her husband in 1925. She had only a life interest. The sale deed, therefore, became void on her death. For this reason also the vendees were not entitled to be recorded as bhumidhars.

(2.) IN Ramji Dixit v. Bhrigu Nath, 1964 AWR 75 a Full Bench of this Court held that a female bhumidhar has power of transfer even though she may have inherited the holding from a male holder. She acquires full rights in the holding under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. Her interest is not limited to her lifetime. In view of this decision, which was subsequently affirmed by the Supreme Court in Ramji Dixit v. Bhrigunath, 1968 AWR 748, the sale deed could not be held to have become ineffective on the death of Smt. Sukhrani.

(3.) FOR the Respondents reliance was placed upon a Division Bench decision of this Court reported in Awadesh Kumar v. Board of Revenue, 1974 RD 286. In that case the question was whether the sale of a grove having an area of more than 12 1/2 acres was valid. The Division Bench held that a grove is transferable and is not covered by Section 154 of the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act. The question whether transfer of agricultural land in violation of Section 154 will be void or voidable was neither raised nor considered by the Division Bench. The decision in Fakirey v. Board of Revenue mentioned above was not brought to their notice. This decision is distinguishable.