Holding

The two 1951 gift deeds are valid; the 1957 gift deed is invalid and the property passes to the three daughters, each entitled to an equal one‑third share.

Summary

Bechan, a bhumidar under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, executed three gift deeds in favour of his stepson Laldhar—two in June 1951 and one on 18 November 1957. The first two gifts were challenged on the ground that permission for alienation was not properly obtained, but the court held that the Sub‑Divisional Officer had jurisdiction and the sanction was valid, making those gifts effective. The donor died in 1957; under Section 171(b) the widows succeeded to the property, and after both widows died, Section 175 caused the interest to pass by survivorship to the heirs. Applying Sections 172(1)(b) and 171(1)(g), the court held that the three daughters (Sulabi, Bulaki, and Gunia) each receive an equal one‑third share of the property conveyed under the 1957 gift deed, which is therefore invalid. The appeal was allowed, confirming the validity of the 1951 gifts and modifying the decree to allocate the 1957 property among the three daughters.

Issues considered

Whether the permission for alienation obtained from the Sub‑Divisional Officer was valid and sufficient under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950.
Whether the Sub‑Divisional Officer had jurisdiction to grant such permission for the lands in question.
Whether the 1951 gift deeds are valid despite the timing of the sanction.
Whether the 1957 gift deed is valid in view of the donor's death and the succession provisions of the Act.
How Sections 171(b), 171(1)(g), 172(1)(b) and 175 of the Act determine the succession of the property.

Legislation cited

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950s. 171(1)(b), s. 171(1)(g), s. 172(1)(b), s. 175, s. 24

Subjects

gift deedalienationland reformsuccessionsurvivorshipwidowbhumidarU.P. Zamindari Abolition Actproperty division

Judgment

\

SMT. BULAKI (DEAD) BY LRS. A
v.
LAL DHAR AND ORS.

FEBRUARY 19, 1997

(K. RAMASWAMY ANDS. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.) B

U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Refonns Act, 1950 :

Gift-Alienatio11 of land by way of gift-f'ennissio11 obtained sub-
sequently-Held, there is no infinnity i11 the gra11t of sanctio11. C
Ss.171 (1 )(g), 172(1) (b ), 175-Devolution of illterest after death of last
mall-Bhumida1'-Three gift deeds by last male holde1'-Two executed 011
Ju11e 1/2 1951 a11d third i11 1957-Held, two gift deeds executed in 1951 are
valid and the properties u11der those deeds are not open to succession-As
regards, third gift deeds, the land holder died i11 1957 leaving behi11d two D
wives-As a co11Sequence u/s. 171 (1) (b) succession is ope11 and the two
widows would joillt/y succeed to the property-Sillce pending proceedings one
widow died, the other co-widow would succeed to state by operation of
s.175-f'ending appeal other co-widow also died-The three surviving
daughters would succeed to the estate of the male holder by operation of E
s.172(J)(b) read with s. 17l(l)(g)--!11 the circumsta11ces in respect of the

- properties co11veyed under the third gift deed of 1957, all the three daughters
are e11titled to I/3rd share each.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3456 of F

-- 1979.

From the Judgment and Or.der dated 14.12.77 of the Allahabad High
Court in S.A. No. 500 of 1965.

P.P. Juneja for the Appellant. G
T.N. Singh, S.N. Singh and B.M. Sharma for the Respondents.

The following Order of the Court was delivered :

This appeal, by special leave, arises from the Judgment dated H
205
206 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 2 S.C.R.

A December 14, 1977 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Second Appeal
No. 500/65.

The admitted facts are that the last male-holder in the family, Bechan
had two wives, Bhungi and Bhikni. Bhungi and given birth to three
B daughters, Gulabi, Sulabi and Bulaki, the appellant. Gulabi died on
7.2.1963. Smt. Sulabi and Smt. Bulaki were substituted as legal heirs after
the demise of Bhungi. Bechan's second wife Bhikni had a son, Laldhar,
born to her former husband, and brought him along with her when she was
married to Bechan. After her marriage with Bechan she ha:d a daughter by
name Gunia. During the life time of Bechan, who was a bhumidar under
C the U.P. -Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, he had ex-
ecuted three gift deeds in favour of Laldhar. The Fist two gift deeds were
made in the year 1951 and the third gift deed on 18.11.57. When the said
gift deeds were challenged by the appellant, the appellate Court and the
High Court upheld the validity of the fist two gift deeds and declared the
D third gift deed to be invalid.

Shri Juneja, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has con-
tended that the permission for alienation was not properly obtained from
competent officer and that, therefore, it was invalid. He has pointed out
that the first two gift deeds were made on June 1, 1951 and June 2, 1951.
E On 1.1.1951 an application for permission to the Sub-Divisional Officer was
made and the sanction thereof was granted on the next day, namely, June
2, 1951. By operation of the proviso to Section 24 of the Act, it is contended
that even subsequent permission validates the alienation by way of a gift.
We find no infirmity in the grant of sanction. It is then contended by Sri
p Juneja that the Sub-Divisional Officer had no jurisdiction to grant the
permission since the lands were situated outside his Division. The High
Court has looked into the map and held that the lands are situated in that
Sub-Division only and that, therefore, he has got jurisdiction to grant the
--
permission. It then contended that it was not the plea of either of the
parties and the High Court would not have gone into that question for the
G first time. May be the learned counsel is right in this behalf, but with a view
to satisfy 4is conscience the learned Judge had secured the offi~ial map
and looked into the area and found, as a fact, that the lands were. situated
within the area of the officer who granted permission. Even though it is
..
found to be not legally permissible, since the learned Judge has done it to
H do justice, we do not interfere with the finding in the appeal under Article
BULAKI v. LAL DHAR 207

136. Therefore, the two gift deeds of June 1/2, 1951 are valid. Under those A
two deeds, Laldhar has got the properties and that therefore, the proper- ·
ties are not open to succession.

As regards the property under the third gift deed, it is seen that
Bechan died in the year 1957. As a consequence, under Section 171(b) of
the Act succession is open and under clause (b) the widow succeeds the B
property. Since he had left behind him two widow, the two widows jointly
succeeded to the property. Since pending the proceedings Bhungi died, the
co-widow, namely, Bhikni succeeded to the estate by operation of Section
175 of the Act which reads as under :

"175. Passing of interest by survivorship. - In the cases of a co- C
widow, or a co-tenure-holder who dies leaving no heir entitled to
succeed under the provisions of this Act, the interest in such
holding shall pass by survivorship."

Pending this appeal the co-widow, viz., Bhikni too died.
D
In consequence, if the co-widow leaving behind no heirs entitled to
succeed under the provisions of the Act, the interest in such holding shall
pass by survivorship. Since she had left behind one heir-daughter, namely,
Guniya and equally Bhungi left behind her three daughters Guiab~ Sulabi
and Bulaki, and Gulabi having pre- deceased the mother, Sulabi, Bulaki E
and Guniya would succeed to the estate of male holder by operation of
Section 172(1)(b) read with 171(1)(g) of the Act. Under these circumstan-
ces, in respect of the properties conveyed under the third gift deed, dated
November 18, 1957, all the three are entitled to 1/3rd share each.

The appeal is accordingly allowed and the decree of the trial Court F
stands modified to the above extent. No costs.

R.P. Appeal allowed.