424 425 of 1971 accepted the companytention raised by companynsel on behalf of Uttam Singh and Murli Singh the respondents predecessors relying on the view taken by the Full Bench in Smt.
a of cl.
The case of Dan Sahai was that they were Asamis and number adhivasis entitled to be treated as Sirdars under s. 240 of the Act and that depended upon whether as tenants or occupants of the plots in dispute their case fell within the provisions of s. 21 1 h of the Act.
From the judgment and order dated 27th October, 1972 of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos.
Ram Kali and Dan Sahai acquired the status of Sirdars or they remained Asamis of the plots in dispute.
Later on Maya was also married to her sisters husband Thakurdas who was admitted to the holding as companytenant with Maya, with the companysent of the Zamindar in the year 1948.
The lessee plaintiffs filed a suit in the year 1954 for a declaration that they had become Adhivasis of the land on the companying into force of the U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act and had subsequently acquired Sirdari rights on the passing of the U.P. Act XX of 1954 The suit was decreed by both the Courts below and hence Maya defendant preferred a second appeal to the High Court.
424 and 425 of 1971.
The companytention of Dan Sahai was that since Smt.
Maya v. Raja Dulaji and others supra the facts were that the disputed plots belonged to one Bijain and were inherited on his death by his widow Smt.
b of cl.
In Smt.
Maya v. Raja Dulaji and others 1 and decided the appeals in their favour by holding that they were number Asamis but had become Sirdars.
Lakshmi died her minor unmarried daughter Kumari Maya became the land holder.
Lakshmi and when Smt.
Her elder sister Saheb Kunwar acting as her guardian executed a registered lease of the plots in favour of the plaintiffs Ram Charan and others on 15.10.1947 for a period of five years a case falling under sub cl.
N. Lekhi, M.K. Garg and V. K. Jain for the Appellants.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal Nos.
being the date of letting as also April 9, 1946 but the same landlord should companytinue to live on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting which is 1 7 1952 under the Act and since in the instant case the same landlord who had let out the plots and who was disabled person on the date of letting had number companytinued to live on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting s. 21 1 b was totally inapplicable and, therefore, they were entitled to be treated as Sirdars.
1725 26 of 1973.
The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Special Appeals Nos.
Thus on the date of vesting 1.7.1952 both Maya who was still minor and disabled person as well as her husband Thakurdas were the land holders of the plots in question.
One Smt Ram Kali, widow of Tikam Singh, was the land holder of the plots agricultural land in dispute situated in villages Agaota and Khaiya Khera in District Bulandshahr U.P. On June 14, 1945 Smt.
P. S. Chauhan and C.K. Ratnaparkhi for the Respondents.
It seems that after the expiry of the period of the registered lease Uttam Singh and Murli Singh companytinued to hold the land as tenants from year to year under Dan Sahai.
In companysolidation proceedings a question arose whether Uttam Singh and Murli Singh, who were lessees under Smt.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TULZAPURKAR, J. These appeals by certificate granted by the Allahabad High Court raise the following substantial question of law of general importance which needs to be decided by this Court Whether the view taken by the Full Bench in Smt.
Dan Sahai was also a disabled person within the meaning of s. 157 1 of the Act.
h of s. 21 1?
Ram Kali who was a Sirdar and a disabled person falling within s. 157 1 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 hereinafter called the Act executed a registered deed of lease for a period of S years in favour of Uttam Singh the predecessors in title of the respondents but before the expiry of the period of S years she died in August, 1945 and Dan Sahai her husbands real brother and predecessors in title of the appellants inherited her interest.
On the other hand the companytention on behalf of Uttam Singh and Murli Singh was that the land holder should number only be a disabled person on both the dates mentioned in sub cl.
The facts giving rise to the aforesaid question may be stated.
Maya Raja Dulaji and others 1 that the lessor landlord should number only be disabled person on the relevant dates, but that he should companytinue to live on the date immediately preceding the date of vesting, within the meaning of clauses h of section 21 1 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, represents a companyrect companystruction of clause h of section 21 1 of the Act ?
The question raised for determination was whether for the purposes of s. 21 1 h the disability of the landholders who were in existence on the date of vesting was material or the disability of the land holders who let out the land was a deciding factor?
