Rana Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd.

Case Details & Bench

Court: High Court
Hon'ble Judges: M. H. Beg, C.J.
A. C. Gupta
P. S. Kailasam
Judgment Date: 1977-02-18
Court Decision / Holding: Appeal allowed; set aside the judgments and decrees of the High Court and the Execution Court with costs.
Final Disposition: Appeal allowed; judgments of High Court and Execution Court set aside with costs.

Parties to the Case

Appellants / Petitioners

Rana Sheo Ambar Singh

Respondents

Allahabad Bank Ltd.

Legal Representation & Advocates

Counsels for Petitioners

• S. N. Presad

Counsels for Respondents

• G. C. Mahur
• O. P. Rana

Case Synopsis & Summary

This appeal concerns the execution of a mortgage decree and the status of proprietary rights in land described as ‘grove land’ and the trees within groves under the Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950. The respondent-decree holder sought to attach and sale the trees in groves as part of the mortgaged property, arguing the trees could be treated as assets distinct from grove-land. The appellant contends that under the Act, the intermediary’s rights in grove-land (groves) may constitute bhumidhari property, and the definition of “intermediary’s grove” equates to grove-land, meaning such rights are not free from encumbrances to the State’s benefit. The judgment repeatedly cites the Court’s earlier decision in Rana Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd., Allahabad (1962) 2 SCR 441, which held that after vesting, the mortgagee could only proceed against the mortgagor’s compensated rights under s. 6(h) read with s. 73, not the sale of grove trees. The Court clarifies that grove-land and intermediary’s grove are to be treated under the Act’s definitions, and that trees, before cutting, form parts of land. It ultimately holds that the appellant’s appeal should be allowed and sets aside the lower court’s orders, with costs, redefining the locus of the intermediary’s rights post-Act.

Provisions of Law Cited

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951)Section 6(a)(i)Section 6(h)Section 73 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882Section 18(1)(a)Section 3(13)

Legal Doctrines & Maxims

Trees, before they are cut, form parts of land.
Groves are collections of trees in plots of land precluding cultivation in them.
Intermediary's grove means grove-land held or occupied by an intermediary as such.

Submissions & Arguments

Contentions of Appellants / Petitioners

The appellant contends that there is no permissible distinction between grove-land and intermediary's grove under the UP Act; the definitions in Section 3(13) equate grove-land with intermediary's grove, and the trees in groves are parts of land; after vesting under the Act, the intermediary’s rights may persist as bhumidhari property, and the mortgagee’s remedy is constrained to compensation under Section 6(h) read with Section 73 of the TP Act. The appeal seeks to affirm that the trees and grove rights are encompassed within the intermediary’s rights rather than extinguished as encumbrances.

Contentions of Respondents

The respondent argued that post-Act, grove-land vests in the State; mortgagee’s recourse is limited to compensation to the intermediary, and the right to enforce against the mortgagor’s property is limited accordingly; the case cites the earlier decision as controlling and urges maintenance of distinctions between grove-land and trees.

Cited Precedents (1)

Case Name	Citation	Treatment	Explanation
Rana Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank Ltd., Allahabad (1962) 2 SCR 441	2 SCR 441	Positive	The Court explicitly cites and relies on this earlier decision to support the interpretation that after vesting, the mortgagee’s rights are limited to compensation under the Act and that a sale of grove trees is not permissible. The present judgment treats it as binding authority and follows its reasoning.

Extracted Judgment Text

Exact text extracted from official judgment records.

r # I 1 · ! •• 33 RANA SHEO AMBAR SINGH _v._ ALLAHABAD BANK LTD. _February_ 18, 1977 [l\I. H. BEG, C. J., A. C. GUPTA :~ND P. S. KAii.ASAM, JJ.] _Execution_ _of._ _a_ _1nort:;:age_ _decree-Proprietary_ _ri1d1ts_ _in_ _Sir,_ _Khudkhast_ _land_ _and grove land_ _)\,'hicll_ _were n1ortgaged 1vere extilu.:uisill'd and_ _the_ _Bliumidari_ - _rig/it an altogether_ _new_ _right created_ _by_ _U.P. Zaniindari_ _Abolition_ _and_ _Land_ _Reforms_ _Act._ 1950 _(U.P._ _Act_ 1 _of_ 1951 _)-Jf'i'let1ier trees being a part_ _of_ _a_ _grove are included in_ _the_ _"grore-land" which_ _V!!!ifS_ _in_ _th:J_ _U.P. State Govern-_ _nunt_ _free_ _frqm_ _all_ _encun1brances-Scove_ _of_ ~ectio-i _6(a)_ (i). 6(/i) _and_ 1~ _of_ _the U.P. Zamindari_ _Abolition_ & _Land_ _Refor1ns_ _Act,_ 1950. In _Rana_ _Sileo A1nbar Singh_ v. _Allahabad_ _Bank_ _Ltd., Allaliabad_ (1962) - 2 SCR p.441, this Court held that the respondent could not enforce his nghts ur,der the mortga_ge by the sale of the new Bhumi~la1i 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 follo\v 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 ap{'.lellant was ordered by 1he executing Court taking the view that there is a distinction behveen the tr.'!es and a grove and grove land. The Di iision Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench). upheld the views of the Executing Court and dismissed the aopeat. AllO\\'ing the appeal by certificate, the Court, HELD : ( 1 )_ The vieW that there is a dis_tinction beh.\'een trees and a grove ar.d p:rove land and, therefore exect1tion aga:nst trees in groves could be proceeded against cannot be accepted in the light of th~ definition of the intermediary g:rove under s. 3(13) of the U.P. Zamindari Aboiition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, viz., "intermediary's grOve" means grov·~land held or occupied by an intermediary as ~uch. [34 : D-E, H] (2) Groves are only collection of trees in plots of land so as io preclude cultivation in them. The uncut trees are deemed to be parts of the la-nd. The proposition is W_!ll settled under the general la\v. that trees, before they are cut, fcrm parts of 'land'. And are inseparable part is ahvays included in the \\'hole. [34E-FJ (3) Section 18(1)(a) of the Act provide that an "intermediary grove" is bhumidary property. Rights in it are parts of bhumidari rights. [34F] · CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2041 of 19~. . . (From the Judgment and Decree dated 2.2.1966 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) Lucknow in First Execution Appeal No 5/62). S. _N._ _Pre.sad,_ for the appellant. G. C. _M:11hur_ and _0._ _P._ _Rana_ for the respondent. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by •• BEG. C.J.-'01is appeal by certificate raises the simple question ## whether :ertain trees, said to be part of a grove, are included in A B ### c D E F G H A B ## c D E F G 34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS U 9771 3 S·C.R. 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 proceedings 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 respondent-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 continued to vest in the intermediary. This Court rejected that submission and held that after vesting of all the rights mentioned in section 6 Gf the Act in the State of Uttar Pradesh, new bhumidhari rights came mto existence under section 18 of the Act. It also held that the only way in which a mortgagee could enforce his right against the mortgagor 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 agaimt 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 iu 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 groveland, 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 Olf the intermediary's grove~under section 3 (l 3) of the Act, which says : "intermediary's grove' means grove-land held or occupied by an intermediary as such." This means that "groveJand" and "" "intermediary's grove" are equated. And groves are only collectioi;s of trees iu plots of land so as to preclude cultivation in them. The uncut trees are deemed to be parts of the "land''. Section 18 (I) (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 Jaw, 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 mid set aside the judgments and decrees of the High Court and the Execution Court with costs. #### ll S.R. Appeal allowed.