MURALIDHAR Vs. BANSIDHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner became an heir specified in Class 1 of the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act along with opposite parties 1 to 4 in respect of certain property by virtue of intestate succession under the Act. Opposite parties 1 to 4 having transferred their interest in the property which devolved upon all of them by intestate succession, the petitioner filed an application under S.22 of the Hindu Succession Act (for short, 'the Act') and miscellaneous case No. 250 of 1977 was registered. The Court determined the consideration at Rs.250/-. On 16-2-79 the Court directed opposite parties 5 to 10 to retransfer the property to the petitioner. It further directed that on failure of the opposite parties 5 to 10 to execute the sale deed, the same would be executed by the Court. The petitioner instituted a proceeding for execution of the sale deed and recovery of possession. The sale deed was executed by the Court on the default of opposite parties 5 to 10. Then the difficulty cropped up. It struck to the Court that perhaps under the provisions of S. 22 of the Act the petitioner was not entitled to the reliefs sought by way of an execution before it. It went into the matter in depth and rejected the petition and dismissed the proceeding holding that S.22 did not authorise the Court to do so.

(2.) Mr. S. Misra 2, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has strenuously urged that even though the provisions contained in S.22 might not be sufficiently comprehensive to carry out the purpose underlying the section, the Court should so interpret the provision that the purpose of the beneficial provision is achieved. He has submitted that unless such an interpretation is given, the provision would be meaningless and would not serve the purpose for which it was enacted. Since the party has to approach the court of competent jurisdiction as provided in the explanation to S.22 under S.22(2) for determination of the consideration, the Civil Court ought also to have jurisdiction to confer the benefit in full measure. S. 22 of the Act reads as under :

(3.) Sub-s. (2) provides for determination of consideration when there is a difference between the parties, namely, the one intending to acquire and the other proposing to transfer. The provision does not go any further. S. 22 does not lay down any other procedure. The scope of the application is limited and hence the jurisdiction of the Court. The section does not lay down the procedure for the enforcement of the right conferred under sub-sec. (1). Only one aspect of the controversies that might arise pursuant to the right conferred by sub-sec. (1) has been taken care of and no other. The provision being clear and categorical and there being no ambiguity in it, it is not open to the Court to so interpret the provision which would amount to legislating on its part. Ordinarily the Courts do not make law but interpret it.