Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960: s. 46 – Competent Authority while determining surplus land of the plaintiff, included the land inherited by his wife from her mother – Suit by plaintiff against the State challenging order of Competent Authority and also against his wife seeking declaration that the marriage between them was already dissolved by way of customary divorce and hence land of her wife could not have been considered for determining his surplus land – Suit dismissed by trial court as well as first appellate court – High Court, in second appeal, decreed the suit – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: In view of s. 46 there was a complete bar against maintainability of the suit before civil court challenging the decision of Competent Authority– However, the suit qua his wife seeking declaration for divorce was maintainable – The trial as well as first appellate court in their concurrent finding disbelieved the customary divorce – Therefore, High Court, in exercise of powers u/s. 100 CPC, was not justified in interfering with the concurrent finding of facts and thus exceeded its jurisdiction – Even on merits, the plaintiff failed to prove the customary divorce – Plaintiff had come out with the case of customary divorce only with a view to get out of the provisions of the Act – Suit is liable to be dismissed – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s. 100.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. By Order dated 18.05.1976 and after following due procedure required to be followed under the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Ceiling on Agricultural Holdings Act, 1960, the Competent Authority declared 57.32 acres of land as surplus land under the provisions of the Act 1960. As wife of the plaintiff had inherited 19.89 hectares of land from her mother, therefore, as such, she became the absolute owner of the aforesaid land. As per the provisions of the Act, the land held by the wife was required to be included in the holding of the family of the husband. Therefore, the Competent Authority included 19.89 hectares of land in the holding of the family of the plaintiff and consequently by Order dated 18.05.1976 declared 57.32 acres of land as surplus land. [Para 7] [990-C-D]
2. The Order passed by the Competent Authority declaring the land as surplus land is subject to appeal and further revision as provided under the Act 1960 (Section 41 and 42 of the Act 1960). Section 46 of the Act 1960 provides that no Civil Court has jurisdiction to settle, decide or deal with any question which is by or under the Act 1960 required to be settled, decided or dealt with by the Competent Authority. Therefore, as per Section
46 of the Act 1960 there shall be a complete bar against maintainability of the suit challenging the decision of the Competent Authority. Despite the above and without preferring any appeal/revision as provided under the Act 1960 challenging the Order passed by the Competent Authority dated 18.05.1976, the plaintiff filed the suit before the Civil Court praying for a declaration to declare the Order dated 18.05.1976 of the Competent Authority as null and void. It is true that in the suit the plaintiff also prayed for declaration to declare that the divorce had taken place between him and his wife on the basis of the customary procedure. Therefore, as such, the suit qua the same relief can be said to be maintainable. But certainly, the suit challenging the Order passed by the Competent Authority dated 18.05.1976 was not maintainable at all. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the Order dated 18.05.1976 passed by the Competent Authority. [Para 7] [990-E-H; 991-A-C]
Sooraj v. SDO (1995) 2 SCC 45 : [1994] 5 Suppl. SCR 686; Mohanlal NanbhaiChoksi (Dead) by LRs. v. State of Gujarat (2010) 12 SCC 726 : [2010] 12 SCR
499 – relied on.
Dhulabhai v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1969 SC
78 : [1968] SCR 662 – distinguished.
Union of India v. Shri Kant Sharma (2015) 6 SCC
773 : [2015] 4 SCR 676; Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil v. Sandeep Ananda Patil (2019) SCC Online SC 329; Subramani v. M. Chandralekha (2005) 9 SCC 407: [2004] 6 Suppl. SCR 285; Yamanaji J. Jadhav v. Nirmala (2002) 2 SCC 637; Dwarka Prasad Agarwal v. Ramesh Chander Agarwal (2003) 6 SCC 220 : [2003] 1 Suppl. SCR 376 – referred to.
3. There were concurrent findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below that the original plaintiff has failed to prove and establish that the divorce had already taken place between the plaintiff and his wife by way of customary divorce. Both the Courts below specifically disbelieved the Divorce Deed at Exhibit P5. The aforesaid findings were recorded by both the Courts below on appreciation of evidence on record. Therefore, as such, in exercise of powers under Section 100 of the CPC, the High Court was not justified in interfering with the aforesaid findings of facts recorded by both the Courts below. Therefore, the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while passing the impugned Judgment and Order in the Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC. [Para 8] [991-F-H]
4. Even on merits both the Courts below were right in holding that the plaintiff failed to prove the customary divorce as claimed. At no point of time earlier either the plaintiff or his wife claimed customary divorce on the basis of Divorce Deed at Exhibit P5. At no point of time earlier it was the case on behalf of the plaintiff or his wife that there was a divorce in the year 1962 between the plaintiff and his wife. In the year 1971, wife of the plaintiff executed a Sale Deed in which she is stated to be the wife of the plaintiff. Before the Competent Authority neither the plaintiff nor his claimed the customary divorce. Even in the Revenue Records the name of plaintiff’s wife was mutated. In the circumstances and on appreciation of evidence on record, the Trial Court rightly held that the plaintiff has failed to prove the divorce between as per the custom. Only with a view to get out of the provisions of the Ceiling Act 1960, subsequently and much belatedly, the plaintiff came out with a case of customary divorce. Exhibit P5 was got up and concocted document with a view to get out of the provisions of the Ceiling Act 1960. The High Court has clearly erred in interfering with the findings of facts recorded by the Courts below which were on appreciation of evidence on record. [Paras 9 and 9.1] [992-A-F]
Translations made available by the Supreme Court of India in its e-SCR, opened as PDF files from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments data set. A translation is for understanding the judgment; the English judgment is the authentic text for all official purposes.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
As listed in the Supreme Court Reports. Linked where the judgment is on LegalFirms.in.
From the case lists those reports print.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.
