STATE Vs. YAKINUDDIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State of Madhya Pradesh (defendant) against the decree for Rs. 10500/ - out of a claim of Rs. 15000/ - , passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Balaghat, in civil suit No. 11 -B of 1953, in favour of the plaintiff Yakinuddin. The plaintiff has filed a cross -objection for the balance of Rs. 4500 -.

(2.) THE facts of the case are not in dispute. The plaintiff took the trees detailed in the Schedule attached to the plaint for certain purposes from the proprietors Krishnarao and Khanderao on 29 -3 -1941 for a period of 10 years ending on 31 -7 -1952. This period was extended on 29 -7 -1943 upto 31 -7 -1955. The transactions were evidenced by 2 deeds which were duly registered. On the coming into force of the M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Estates, Mahals, Alienated Lands) Act, 1950 (1 of 1951), on 31 -3 -1951, the State of Madhya Pradesh took possession of the trees. The plaintiff, therefore, filed the present suit for recovery of Rs. 15000/ - as damages on account of the loss of income for the period 1 -4 -1951 to 31 -3 -1953 The grants were made, inter alia, for propagation and collection of lac, and it was the loss of income from this source that was claimed in the suit. The Court of trial, relying upon Firm C.J. Patel& Company vs M.P. State A.I.R. 1953 S.C. 108, held that the grants were binding upon the State and accordingly it awarded to the plaintiff a decree for Rs. 10500/ - as damages. The rest of the claim was disallowed.

(3.) THE question whether the transactions in suit were leases or licences with profits -a -prendre is not material for purposes of this appeal because whatever their nature, they have been effected by registered documents and are, therefore, valid. Whether or not the contention should succeed, therefore, depends upon the question whether the rights created in favour of the plaintiff have vested in the State under Act I of 1951. The relevant provision on this point is section 4 (1) (a) of the said Act It provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any contract, grant or document or in any other law for the time being in force, all rights, title and interest vesting in the proprietor or any person having interest in such proprietary right through the proprietor in the trees shall cease and be vested in the State for purposes of the State free of all encumbrances. The transferee from a proprietor must, therefore, under this provision, have acquired interest in the proprietary right before he can be held to be divested of his rights. The question, therefore, is whether the plaintiff acquired such an interest by virtue of the two transactions.