PETITIONER:
RANA SHEO AMBAR SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
ALLAHABAD BANK LTD.
DATE OF JUDGMENT18/02/1977
BENCH:
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ)
GUPTA, A.C.
KAILASAM, P.S.
CITATION:
1977 AIR 1552 1977 SCR (3) 33
1977 SCC (2) 604
ACT
Execution of a mortgage decree--Proprietary rights in
Sir, Khudkhast land and grove land which were mortgaged were
extinguished and the Bhumidari right an altogether new right
created by U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act,
1950 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951)--Whether trees being a part of a
grove are included in the "grove-land" which vests in the
U.P. State Government free from all encumbrances--Scope of
section 6(a)(i). 6(h) and 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition
& Land Reforms Act, 1950.
HEADNOTE
In Rana Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd., Allaha-
bad (1962) 2 SCR p.441, this Court held that the respond-
ent could not enforce his rights under the mortgage by the
sale of the new Bhumidari rights created in favour of the
mortgagor by s. 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land
Reforms Act, 1950 and that the respondent could only enforce
his rights against the appellant in the manner provided
under s. 6(h) of the Act read with s. 73 of the Transfer of
Property Act, and follow the compensation awarded to the
intermediary. Despite this decision having been brought to
the notice in the execution proceedings initiated by the
respondent attachment of the trees in groves belonging to
the appellant was ordered by the executing Court taking the
view that there is a distinction between the trees and a
grove and grove land. The Division Bench of the Allahabad
High Court (Lucknow Bench) upheld the views of the Executing
Court and dismissed the appeal
Allowing the appeal by certificate, the Court,
HELD: (1) The view that there is a distinction between
trees and a grove and grove land and, therefore execution
against trees in groves could be proceeded against cannot be
accepted in the light of the definition of the intermediary
grove under s. 3(13) of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and
Land Reforms Act, 1950, viz., "intermediary’s grove" means
groveland held or occupied by intermediary as such. [34 D-
E, H]
(2) Groves are only collection of trees in plots of land
so as to preclude cultivation in them. The uncut trees are
deemed to be parts of the land. The proposition is well
settled under the general law, that trees, before they are
cut. form parts of ’land’. And are inseparable part is
always included in the whole. [34E-F]
(3) Section 18(1)(a) of the Act provide that an "inter-
mediary grove" bhumidary property. Rights in it are parts
of bhumidari rights. [34F]
JUDGMENT
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2041 of
1968.
(From the Judgment and Decree dated 2.2.1966 of the
Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) Lucknow in First Execu-
tion Appeal No 5/62).
S.N. Prasad, for the appellant.
G.C. Mathur and O.P. Rana for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, C.J.--This appeal by certificate raises the simple
question whether certain trees, said to be part of a grove,
are included in
34
grove-land, which, under section 6(a) (i) of the U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (hereinafter
referred to as the Act) vests in the State of Uttar Pradesh
free from all encumbrances. This very question was raised
by the respondent-decree holder in the execution proceed-
ings in this very case, between the same parties which came
to this Court on an earlier occasion.We have perused the
judgment of this Court reported in 1962 (2) S.C.R. 441, in
the case. We find that the position taken by the respond-
ent-decree-holder then also was that, after the coming into
force of the Act, what could still be sold in execution of
the decree was the right in trees of groves as these contin-
ued to vest in the intermediary. This Court rejected’ that
submission and held that after vesting of all the rights
mentioned in. section 6 of the Act in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, new bhumidhari rights came into existence under
section 18 of the Act. It also held’ that the only way in
which a mortgagee could enforce his right against the
mortgage or after the Act came into force is provided in
section 6(h) of the Act, read with section 73 of the
Transfer of Property Act, 1882, so that nothing more than
the compensation awarded to the, intermediary could be
proceeded against by the mortgagee.Proceed against by the
mortgagee.
We are surprised that, even after that decision which,
according to the aPPellant-judgment-debtor, constitutes a
complete answer to any further execution proceedings in
respect of any part of bhumidhari rights, execution should
have proceeded against trees in groves and the view taken by
the execution court, that there is a distinction between,
trees and a grove and grove land, should have been upheld by
a Division Bench of the Allahabad ’High Court (Lucknow
Bench).We find that it is impossible for us to accept this
opinion in view of the definition of the intermediary’s
grove-under section 3(13) of the Act which says
"intermediary grove means grove-land held or occupied by an
intermediary as such". This means that "grove-land" and an
"intermediary’s groves are equated and groves are on ly
collections of trees in plots of land so as to preclude
cultivation in them. The uncut trees are deemed to be parts
of the "land".
Section 18(1)(a) of the Act provides that an
"intermediary’s grove" is bhumidhari property. Rights in it
are part of bhumidhari rights. After these clear words of
the enactment. we think it is not necessary even to consider
previous definitions or to make out specious or unrealistic
distinctions between standing uncut trees, which are parts
of groves, and groves and grove-land. The proposition is
well settled, under the general law, that trees, before they
are cut, form parts of ’land’. And, an inseparable part is
always included in the whole. In view of this very clear
legal position, we allow this appeal and set aside the
judgments and decrees of the High Court and the Execution
Court with costs.
S.R. Appeal al-
lowed.
35