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

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

Decree passed under s.59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 by compromise between widow and respondent, without impleading reversioners, was collusive and fraudulent and does not bind the reversioners; the respondent did not acquire any right as a joint tenant, as the widow did not ratify joint tenancy when she became absolute owner under Abolition Act; proceedings under Privileges Act conferred only a limited right to possession, not absolute ownership or power to create co-tenancy.

Parties
Appellants: Ram Prasad (Dead) by LRs. and Ors.; Respondents: The Assistant Director of Consolidation and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
30 March 1994
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 8.9.80 of the Allahabad High Court in W.p. No. 3876 of 1973
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Co Tenancy, Succession, Fraudulent Decree, Abatement of Suits, Jurisdiction, Widow's Rights, Consolidation Proceedings
Property Law Tenancy Law Civil Procedure Co Tenancy Succession Fraudulent Decree Abatement of Suits Jurisdiction +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ram Prasad (Dead) by LRs. and Ors.

Appellants

The Assistant Director of Consolidation and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment and Order Dated 8.9.80 of the Allahabad High Court in W.p. No. 3876 of 1973

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent acquired rights as joint tenant with widow under U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 and subsequent statutes
  2. 2 Whether decree passed under s.59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act was collusive and fraudulent and binds reversioners
  3. 3 Whether Privileges Act conferred absolute ownership and power to create co-tenancy on widow prior to Abolition Act

Ratio Decidendi

Decree passed under s.59 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 by compromise between widow and respondent, without impleading reversioners, was collusive and fraudulent and does not bind the reversioners; the respondent did not acquire any right as a joint tenant, as the widow did not ratify joint tenancy when she became absolute owner under Abolition Act; proceedings under Privileges Act conferred only a limited right to possession, not absolute ownership or power to create co-tenancy.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The writ petition stands dismissed.
  • Orders of the tribunals under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act are affirmed.