Holding

The decree under Section 59 was collusive and fraudulent, the widow never ratified any joint tenancy after becoming an absolute owner, and therefore the respondent did not acquire any right as a joint tenant.

Summary

The widow Jivani, after the death of her husband Bahadur Singh (the last male holder of tenancy rights), claimed to have created a joint tenancy with Jwala Singh under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939. The appellants, heirs of the original tenant, challenged the decree, alleging it was collusive and fraudulent and that the reversioners were not made parties. The Supreme Court examined whether the widow, who became an absolute owner under the Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, could lawfully alienate her interest and ratify a joint tenancy, and whether a decree obtained without the reversioners binds them. The Court held that the decree was indeed collusive, that the widow never ratified any joint tenancy after acquiring absolute ownership, and that the Privileges Act gave only a temporary protective right, not an absolute right to alienate. Consequently, the respondent did not acquire any right as a joint tenant and the High Court's findings were set aside.

Issues considered

Whether a widow of the last male tenant can create a joint tenancy with a third party under Section 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act after acquiring absolute ownership under the Zamindari Abolition Act.
Whether a decree obtained under Section 59 without making the reversioners parties is binding on them.
Whether the decree under Section 59 was collusive and fraudulent and therefore liable to be set aside.
Whether the U.P. Agricultural Tenants Acquisition of Privileges Act, 1949 confers an absolute ownership right enabling alienation prior to the Zamindari Abolition Act.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 9
U.P. Agricultural Tenants Acquisition of Privileges Act, 1949s. 6, s. 7(1)(c)
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953s. 5
U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939s. 33(2), s. 35, s. 36, s. 37, s. 59
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951

Subjects

tenancyjoint tenancycollusive decreeland reformszamindari abolitionprivileges actreversionercivil procedureconsolidation of holdings

Judgment

I

\

RAM PRASAD (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. A
v.
THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

> MARCH 30, 1994

[K. RAMASWAMY AND N. VENKATACHALA, JJ.] B

U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939-S.33(2) provis6-{f.P. Zamindari Abolition
and Land Reforms Act, 1951-Respondent claiming cotcnancy with widow
of last male holder of tenancy right.......Widow not ratifying join tenancy after
becoming absolute owner-held, respondent did not acquire any rights as joint C
.. ;- tenant.

U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939-Ss.59, 33(2)-U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953-Suit for declaration as co-owner under S. 33(2) decreed by com-
promise with widow without reversioners of last male holder being made
parties-Held, decree collusive, fraudulent and does not bind rever- D
sioners-Liable to be set aside in subsequent declaratory suit-Code of Civil
Procedure, S. 9.

U.P. Agricultural Tenants A.cquisition of Privileges Act, 1949-S.6,
S.7(J)(c)-U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939-S.59-Whether widow of last male E
holder of tenancy rights could induct joint tenant-Held, the Privileges Act, a
temporary measure, gives only a limited right to remain in possession-Does
not get enlarged into an absolute right as owner to encumber the estate

B, the last male holder of tenancy rights in respect of agricultural
land, died interstate leaving behind his widow J. Respondent JS moved an F
application under S. 59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 for a declaration
J that he was co-tenant. This suit, to which the reversioners of B were not
parties, was decreed by a compromise between J and JS.

After J's death, R the predecessor in interest of the appellants and
the lineal descendant of B filed a suit to declare the decree under S.59 of G
the Tenancy Act as collusive and fraudulent. The authorities under the
U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act held that the decree was fraudulent.
JS moved the High Court by way of a revision petition which was allowed.
The High Court held that the decree under S. 59 had become final and
that J as an absolute mmer after the coming into force of the U.P. H
231
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act from July 1,1952 could
·alienate that right. The legal representatives of R appealed to this Court.

Allowing the appeal, this Court

HELD : I. JS does not acquire any right as a joint tenant. J had
B acquired, on and from July 1, 1952, absolute right, title and interest in the
holding as a full owner. However, J did not ratify the joint tenancy either
on or after she became absolute owner under the Abolition Act.
[pp 237F; 238-E-F; 239-A-B]
Ramji Dixit &Anr. v. Bhrigunath & Ors. [1966) 2 SCR 767, referred to.
c
2.1. The declaration given in the Civil Suit and by the tribunals that
the decree obtained was fraudulent and collusive is perfectly legal. If a
person inducted into possession by a tenant having a limited interest or
estate wished to file a suit for declaration of his right as a joint tenant
under S.59, it is but necessary that the reversioner should be made a party
D respondent. [235-F-G-H; 236-A-E)

2.2. Any encumbrance created by J burdening the estate without
impleading the appellants does not bind them as reversioner. [236-A]

Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh & Ors., [1968) 2 SCR 95, referred ·'
E to.

3. The limited right of J under the Privileges Act to remain in
possession till the making of the Abolition Act does not get enlarged into
an absolute right as owner to alienate or encumber the estate. [238-B-C)
F
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2802 of
1980.

From the Judgment and Order dated 8.9.80 of the Allahabad High
Court in W.P. No. 3876 of 1973.
G
G.L. Saoghi, E.C. Agrawala, A.V. Palli and Atul Sharma for the
Appellants.

Ms. Sandhya Goswamy for the Respondents.

H The followin~ order of the Court was delivered :
RAM PRASAD v. ASSTT. DIRECTOROFCONSOL!DA110N 233

The appellants are the legal representatives of Ram Prasad· and A
sueeessors to one Umrao Singh, brother of Bahadur Singh. Bahadur Singh
and Umrao Singh were the sons of one Ganga Ram, residents of village
Salarpur, Pargana Mooth, Tehsil Hapur, Dist. Meerut, U.P. The dispute
relates to Khata No. 66 of that village. Bahadur Singh died intestate leaving
behind his widow, Smt. Jivani, Bahadur Singh was in possession of the B
Khata No. 66 as a tenant under Chelan Prakash and Jiwan Lal, brothers,
land holders at that relevant time. It is the appellants case that Smt. Jivani
had life estate in the agricultural lands in Khata No. 66. On her demise,
being lineal descendants of Bahadur Singh, the appellants are entitled to
succeed to his estate as owners of the land therein. The proceedings
). ultimately ended against them.
c

While Jivani was in possession and enjoyment of the lands, it would
appear that the respondent, Jwala Singh made an application on July 9,
1951.along with an affidavit filed in the proceedings under s. 59 of U.P. D
Tenancy Act 1939 for short, Tenancy Act and an ex-parte decree was
obtained "that the parties had come to terms. The suit was therefore,
decreed in terms of the compromise in favour of Sirdhari". Accordingly,
the respondent is said to have continued in possession of the said lands as
'· a co-tenant. Challenging the validity of the said decree, Ram Prasad, it
E
appears, had filed O.S. No. 624 of 1952 in the Court of Munsif, Haveli at
Meerut which was decreed on August 28, 1964 declaring that the decree
obtained under s.59 was collusive and fraudulent. The same was confirmed
in Civil Appeal No. 760 of 1964 dated 1.4.1965. While the second appeal
was pending, notification under s.5 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings
Act, 1953 for short 'Consolidation Act' was published. Consequently, the F
proceedings stood abated. In the consolidation proceedings _the authorities
found that the decree obtained by the respondent was a collusive and
·•
fraudulent decree and, therefore, it does not bind the appellants. Thus all
the consolidation proceedings, the Original, Appellate and the Revisional,
ended in favour of the appellants. Calling in question the said proceedings G
the respondent filed C.M.W.P. No, 3876/73 in the High Court and by
judgment dated September 9, 1990, the learned Single Judge allowed the
writ petition and held that the consolidation orders were not legal and the
respondent was entitled to be declared as a co-tenant with Jivani and was
entitled to the half share therein. Thus this appeal by special leave. H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1994] 3 S.C.R.

A Shri G.L. Sanghi, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants
contended that the decree made under s. 59 of the Tenancy Act was a
fraudulent and collusive decree. The High Court, without adverting to thai
fact, relying upon the decree dated July 9, 1951, made under s. 59, con-
cluded that the respondent is entitled to be declared as a co-tenant. That
finding, therefore, is clearly vitiated by manifest error of law. Shri Salish
B Chandra, learned Senior counsel for the respondents contended that
S.7(1)(c) of the U.P. Agricultural Tenants Acquisition of Privileges Act,
1949 for short the Privileges Act which came into force with retrospective
effect confers on Jivani, ownership of the cultivating tenant with right to
alienate by transfer, etc. of her interest in the land. On and w.e.f. August
c 11, 1949, she became an absolute owner and was, therefore, competent to
create co-tenancy in favour of Jwala Singh. Therefore, the decree is valid
in law. It is further contended that after July 1, 1952 the date of vesting
under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, Act 1
of 1952 for short the Abolition Act, she became an absolute owner. She
died, admittedly, after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 for short the
D
Succession Act had come into force. Therefore, the right of co-tenancy
created in favour of the respondent is legal and valid, though these con-
tentions were not raised in the High Court, the conclusion reached by the
High Court could be sustained on that premise. Therefore, it needs no
interference by this court. .J
E
The crucial question is whether Jwala Singh had acquired right as a
co-tenant with Jivani, the widow of Bahadur Singh, the last male holder of
the tenancy rights under the Tenancy Act. Bahadur Singh admittedly was
a cultivating tenant and Jivani succeeded to his estate. Section 32 of
p Tenancy Act declares that the interest of a permanent tenure-holder is
heritable and transferable. Section 33 regulates the right of an occupancy
tenant. Sub-s. (2) of s.33 provides that the tenant can create sub-lease or \.
sale of interest under the provision of S. 252 or release or transfer of
interest in favour of a co-tenant. But proviso to sub-s. (2) creates an
embargo thus :
G
"Provided that no person shall be deemed to be a co-tenant,
notwithstanding that he may have shared in the cultivation of the
holding, unless he was a co-tenant from the commencement of the
tenancy, or has become such by succession or has been specifically
H recognised as such in writing by the landholder".
\
RAM PRASAD v. ASSTI. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 235

The above proviso, as could be seen therefrom, clearly manifests the A
legislative inlendment that no person shall be deemed to be a co-tenant
unless co-tenancy is specifically recognised by the competent authority, on
the basis of a writing by the land holder, he is a co-tenant from the
inception of tenancy or he has become as such by succession. Admittedly
there is no such writing and record, except alleged appearance, as stated B
earlier in the proceedings under s.59, by the land holder per himself and
his minor brother as a guardian, the legality of which will be considered at
a later stage. Suffice it to state that there is nothing in writing creating
co-tenancy in favour of the respondent by the land-holder. Section 35 gives
right of succession to the tenancy rights held by a tenant and a widow who
is one of the heirs of the tenant entitled to succeed to the estate of the
c
deceased tenant. Section 36 clearly indicates that she remains to be a life
estate holder, unless either she surrenders or abandons the land or other-
wise as laid down in s.35, that too in favour of the heirs of the last male
tenant. Section 37 also gives an indication that if a female tenant other than
a tenant mentioned in s.34 or s.36 dies, her interest in the holding shall D
devolve in accordance with the order of succession given thereunder,
namely, in Clause (a) on the male lineal descendants in the male line of
descent. Thus it would be clear that Jivani would remain as a cultivating
tenant of the land during her life time without deriving any absolute right,
title or interest. E

The question then is whether Smc. Jivani could have created co-
tenancy in favour of the third parties without consent of the reversioners,
in the proceedings under s. 59 of the Act. Section 59 of the Tenancy Act
) says that any pers9n claiming to be a tenant or a joint tenant may sue the F
land holder for a declaration that he is a tenant or for a declaration that
he has a share in such joint tenancy. In other words, the pre-existing
co-tenancy rights recognised under s.33(2) proviso is a condition precedent
for obtaining a declaration under s.59. In such a suit filed under the Section
claiming to hold joint tenancy rights, through the holder of the tenancy
rights, whether as a tenant or co-tenant, was it necessary to make the G
reversions party respondents or defendants. It was as necessary as other-
wise the decree in the suit does not bind them. It is, therefore, clear that
if a person inducted into possession, by a tenant having a limited interest
or estate, wished to file a suit for declaration of his right as a joint tenant
under s. 59, it is but necessary that the reversi.oner should be made a H
236 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A party-respondent to the suit. As Smt. Jivani was only a limited owner, with
only right to enjoyment for life, any encumbrance created by her burdening
the estate without impleading the appellants does not bind them as rever-
s1oners.

The question then is whether the suit of the appellants was not
B maintainable, as contended by Shri Satish Chandra. No doubt S.242
prohibits the jurisdiction of the civil courts only in respect of the rights
given and claims arising under the Tenancy Act. But the relief claimed in
the suit was one for a declaration that the decree granted under s. 59 was
vitiated by fraud and collusion. Admittedly, such a relief, when cannot be
c given by revenue courts, the suit undoubtedly becomes maintainable under
s. 9 of C.P.C. In the suit, the findings recorded by the Civil Courts are that
the respondent was not resident of Salarpur. He was already having his
wife and he was not cultivating the lands alongwith Smt. Jivaui. It was also
found that the plea of joint cultivation was not raised in the joint written
D statement of him and Smt. Jivani filed in the first instance. It was only
averred in the additional written statement after her demise. The original
plea was of sharing the crop between him and Smt. Jivani which, by
operation of proviso to s.33\2), does not create a right to joint tenancy.
Accordingly the declaration given in the civil suit for the reasons stated by
the trial that the decree obtained in the snit udner s. 59 was a collusive
E
decree is perfectly legal. That was confrmed by an elaborate reasoning in
the judgment rendered by the 3rd Addi. Dist. Judge on April 1, 1965.
Pending the second appeal notification under s.5 of the Consolidation Act
came to be published. The consequence thereof was considered by this
Court inRamAdharSingh v. Ramroop Singh & Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 95. This
F Court held that once a notification under s.5 was published, the jurisdiction
of the civil court was ousted and it stands transfered to the authorities
constituted under the Consolidation Act to adjudicate upon the dispute.
The suit stands abated. Thus it is conclusive that the authorities under the
Consolidation Act have been invested with the exclusive jurisdiction to
G decide the dispute. As seen the authorities have gone into the question and
held that the decree under s. 59 of Tenancy Act was collusive and
fraudulent one and does not bind the appellants.

Undoubtedly no fresh evidence was adduced m the proceedings
H before Consolitlatioii Officer except the judgments and decrees of the Civil
\
RAM PRASAD v. ASSTI. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 237

Court and the appellate court. The authorities under the Act held that A
though the civil suit stood abated, the evidence considered by the civil court
and the findings recorded therein would be available for consideration and
can be relied upon. We find that the view taken by the authorities is well
justified. Though the suit stood abated, yet the evidence recorded in the
suit or appeal and the findings recorded by civil courts do not get wiped B
out; are entitled to be considered and that, therefore, it being the relevant
evidence the authorities under the Consolidation Act, unless contrary
evidence is established, could go into the evidence and were entitled to rely
upon the findings recorded by the civil courts in support of its conclusions.
Undoubtedly the tribunals below had gone into the question and held that C
the decree obtained by the respondent was collusive and fraudulent decree
and that, therefore, it does not bind the appellants.

It is next to be seen as to what rights Smt. Jivani had acquired after
the Abolition Act had come into force. Admittedly, the Abolition Act had
come into force on January 26, 1951 and notification under s.4 of the D
Abolition Act was published on July 1, 1952. From that date what is the
effect of the rights created in her favour under that Act could be seen. This
is no longer res-integra. This Court in Ramji Dixit & Anr. v. Bhrigunath &
Ors., (1966] 2 SCR 767 exhaustively considered this question of a female
heir of a deceased tenant and held at p. 772 that the female tenant who E
inherited as a limited holder of last male holder acquires the right under
the Abolition Act as an absolute owner and that, therefore, she has all the
rights including the right of abandonment, surrender or transfer. In that
view, it is not necessary for us to once again read into the effect of various
provisions of Tenancy Act and Abolition Act for fresh consideration, F
suffice it to hold that Smt. Jivani had acquired, on and from July 1, 1952,
absolute right, title and interest in the holding in Khata No. 66 as a full
owner. The question still remains as to what is the right the respondent
acquired before she becomes an owner under the Abolition Act. Though
Sri Satish Chandra, relying upon the Privileges Act, contented that she G
became an absolute owner on and from August 11, 1949, we are unable to
agree with the contention. It is seen that the objects and reasons of
Privileges Act disclose that the Act is a temporary measure, as held by this
Court in Ramji Dixit's case. The Act intended to give protection to the
cultivating tenant from being evicted between the date of which the Aboli- H
238 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994] 3 S.C.R.

A tion Act was introduced in the Legislative Assembly in 1949 till the Aboli- ~r
tion Act came into force. The Act gave rights and provided the procedure I
to work them out and to see that such tenants or sub-tenants are not
ejected by the land holder by obtaining the decrees or execution thereof.
Therefore, they can get a declaration to that effect under s.6 of the
B Privileges Act by filing an application under s.5 before the Asst!. Collector
and after an order was made thereon to deposit 10 times the revenue as a
pre-condition. Therefore, though the respondents and Smt. Jivani filed an
application under s.5, the right created therein was only for a limited right
"not to be ejected". Stream can not rise higher than the source and the
C limited privilege to remain in possession pending making of Act 1 of 1952,
does not get enlarged into an absolute right as owner to alienate or
encumber the estate. The contention that she got under s.7(c) thereof the
right to alienate by transfer inter vivos like sale, mortgage or gift is not
tenable for the reason that admittedly no such instrument was executed,
D nor such a plea was set up by the respondent in any proceedings including
in the writ petition. It is only a claim of co-tenancy with Smt. Jivani. It is
seen that by virtue of the declaration given under s.6 of the Privileges Act
only Smt. Jivani got a right not to be ejected from the lands by the land
holder. That does not cloth the respondent with any right other than life
estate, to enjoy tenancy rights as an heir of her husband, Bahadur Singh
E
till July 1, 1952. The unsuccessful proceedings taken thereunder by the
appellants are of no consequence as Asst!. Collector had no jurisdiction to
go into the inter se disputes. It is seen that admittedly Smt. Jivani did not
ratify the joint tenancy with the respondent either on or after July 1, 1952
i.e. after she became absolute owner under the Abolition Act or the
F
Succession Act on or after June 17, 1956. Therefore, what remains on
record is only a declaration obtained under s.59.

As seen the Tribunals under the Consolidation Act concurrently
found, as a fact that the decree under s. 59 was a collusive and fraudulent
G decree. The High Court proceeded on two premises to allow the writ
petition. Firstly, it held that the right under s.59 became final, secondly,
Jivani as an absolute owner had right to alienate that right and that,
therefore, Jwala Singh is entitled to be a joint tenant. Either premise is
wholly unsustainable. As found earlier, she was only a limited owner and
H the declaration by the consolidation authorities is that the decree under
RAM PRASAD v. ASSTI. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION 239

s.59 was a collusive decree. It is already held that such a declaration given, A
by operation of sub-s. (2) of s. 33, does not bind the reversioners, namely,
the appellants. It is seen that no ratification of the joint tenancy rights of
Jwala Singh was made by Smt. Jivani as absolute owner on or after July 1,
1952. The respondent, therefore, does not acquire any right as a joint
tenant in the Khata No. 66. The findings of the High Court that she being B
the owner, has right of alienatisv. are absolutely unsustainable. The appeal
is accordingly allowed. The writ petition stands dismissed and resultantly
the orders of the tribunals under the Consolidation Act stand affirmed. In
the circumstances, parties are directed to bear their own costs.

S.M. Appeal allowed.