MITHLESH KUMARI AND ANR. versus FATEH BAHADUR SINGH AND ANR.

MITHLESH KUMARI AND ANR. versus FATEH BAHADUR SINGH AND ANR.

The High Court failed to properly examine whether, as a result of the two fragmented sales, the entire holding vested in the State or only the transferred fragments, and did not consider the exception under Section 168-A or clause (aa) of Section 189; hence the matter requires reconsideration in accordance with law prevailing at the time of sale.

Parties
Appellant/defendant No. 3: Mithlesh Kumari; Appellant/defendant No. 2: Kalawati; Respondent No. 1/plaintiff: Fateh Bahadur Singh; Respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1: Jang Bahadur
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
22 February 1991
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / On Appeal From Judgment of Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal
Outcome
Appeal disposed of; orders of High Court set aside; case remanded to High Court for fresh disposal according to law.
Legal Topics
Specific Performance of Contract, Transfer of Land, Fragmentation of Land, Void Transfers, Extinction of Rights
Property Law Land Reforms Specific Performance of Contract Transfer of Land Fragmentation of Land Void Transfers Extinction of Rights

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mithlesh Kumari

Appellant/defendant No. 3

Kalawati

Appellant/defendant No. 2

Fateh Bahadur Singh

Respondent No. 1/plaintiff

Jang Bahadur

Respondent No. 2/defendant No. 1

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / On Appeal From Judgment of Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether sale of fragments of a fragment to non-tenure holders is void under Section 168-A of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
  2. 2 Effect of such void transfers on the rights of the bhumidhar and the applicability of specific performance.

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court failed to properly examine whether, as a result of the two fragmented sales, the entire holding vested in the State or only the transferred fragments, and did not consider the exception under Section 168-A or clause (aa) of Section 189; hence the matter requires reconsideration in accordance with law prevailing at the time of sale.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of; orders of High Court set aside; case remanded to High Court for fresh disposal according to law.

Orders

  • Impugned High Court order set aside.
  • Case remanded to High Court for disposal in accordance with applicable law.