Deokinandan and ors. Vs. Surajpal and ors.

Deokinandan and ors. vs Surajpal and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Supreme Court of India Decided Oct 30, 1995

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/672549

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/672549
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: K. Ramaswamy and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ.
Decided On: Oct 30, 1995
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 9869 of 1995
Subject: Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- KARNATAKA SALES TAX ACT, 1957[K.A. No. 25/1957]. Liability to pay Sales Tax ;[S.H. Kapadia & B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ] Sale of pledged ornaments by banks - Held, It is in the course of banking business under the provisions of Banking Regulation Act, 1949. Hence, such transactions are taxable under Section 2(viii)(g...

Key legal issue: Civil
Acts & sections: Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 - Sections 331

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Deokinandan and ors.

Advocate S. Kulshreshta, Adv

Respondent

Surajpal and ors.

Advocate K.K. Gupta (N.P.), Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 - Sections 331
Cases Referred: Chandrika Misir and Anr. v. Bhaiya Lal
Reported In: JT1995(8)SC150; 1995(6)SCALE213; 1995Supp(4)SCC671; [1995]Supp4SCR558

Court's Analysis

Prior History: Appeal From the Judgment and Order dated 5-11-1988 of the Allahabad High Court in S.A. No. 2207 of 1988

Excerpt

- karnataka sales tax act, 1957[k.a. no. 25/1957]. liability to pay sales tax ;[s.h. kapadia & b. sudershan reddy, jj] sale of pledged ornaments by banks - held, it is in the course of banking business under the provisions of banking regulation act, 1949. hence, such transactions are taxable under section 2(viii)(g) read with section 5 of kerala general sales tax act, 1963.dealer; (kerala general sales tax act, 1963); definition sale of pledged goods by bank held, it is in the course of banking business. bank is a dealer under section 2(viii)(g) of the act read with section 5 of the banking regulation act, 1949. -- sale of goods act, 1930 [c.a. no.3/1930]. section 4: definition of sale held, definition of sale under kerala general sales taxt act, 1963 is wider than sale under sales of goods act, 1930. - gupta, advocate, to file counter-affidavit within four weeks from that date and on failure to do the same, it was stated that he would forfeit the right to file the counter-affidavit and the matter would be disposed of on merits without reference to any counter-affidavit. zaminadari abolition and land reforms act, 1951, when read together, showed that a suit, like the present one, had to be filed in a special court created under the act within a period of limitation specially prescribed under the rules made under the act, and the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil courts to entertain the suit was absolutely barred......thus this appeal by special leave.5. this court in chandrika misir and anr. v. bhaiya lal : [1974]1scr290 had to deal with the same question. it was held that:sections 209 and 331 of u.p. zaminadari abolition and land reforms act, 1951, when read together, showed that a suit, like the present one, had to be filed in a special court created under the act within a period of limitation specially prescribed under the rules made under the act, and the jurisdiction of the ordinary civil courts to entertain the suit was absolutely barred.since the civil court which entertained the suit suffered from an inherent lack of jurisdiction because of special provisions of the u.p. zamindari abolition and land reforms act, 1951, the present appeal filed by the appellants had to be dismissed.6. the above ratio applies to the facts in this case. as pointed out earlier, the lands are covered by the provisions of the act and express objection as to the jurisdiction of the civil court was raised. the appellant had purchased 0.7 acres of land out of 2.17 acres. the abadi site comprises one kachha kotha and ghar having boundary walls. since the lands are admittedly covered by the provisions of the act, the civil court inherently lacked jurisdiction to go into the question of title.7. the appeal is accordingly allowed and the suit stands dismissed in so far as it relates to 0.7 acres of land purchased by the appellant. no costs.

Full Judgment

ORDER

K. Ramaswamy and B.L. Hansaria, JJ.

1. This Court had given time on September 1, 1995 to Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate, to file counter-affidavit within four weeks from that date and on failure to do the same, it was stated that he would forfeit the right to file the counter-affidavit and the matter would be disposed of on merits without reference to any counter-affidavit. The petitioner had already served the notices on all the other respondents and dasti service also was effected. Notices accordingly have been served. But counter-affidavit has not been filed till today. The right to file counter-affidavit is forfeited.

2. Leave granted.

3. The controversy is no longer res integra. Admittedly, the suit lands are governed by the provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 [for short, 'the Act'). The appellant had raised the objection to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court in his defence in the Trial Court. He pleaded thus:

The suit is barred under the provisions of Section 331 of U.P. Zamindari & Land Reforms Act. The sale is not barred under the provisions of Section 168-A of Z.A. Act. The plaintiffs suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.

4. In the appellant Court also the same point has been reiterated but negatived. The second appeal was dismissed by the High Court in limine. Thus this appeal by special leave.

5. This Court in Chandrika Misir and Anr. v. Bhaiya Lal : [1974]1SCR290 had to deal with the same question. It was held that:

Sections 209 and 331 of U.P. Zaminadari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, when read together, showed that a suit, like the present one, had to be filed in a Special Court created under the Act within a period of limitation specially prescribed under the Rules made under the Act, and the jurisdiction of the ordinary Civil Courts to entertain the suit was absolutely barred.

Since the Civil Court which entertained the suit suffered from an inherent lack of jurisdiction because of special provisions of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951, the present appeal filed by the appellants had to be dismissed.

6. The above ratio applies to the facts in this case. As pointed out earlier, the lands are covered by the provisions of the Act and express objection as to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court was raised. The appellant had purchased 0.7 acres of land out of 2.17 acres. The abadi site comprises one Kachha Kotha and Ghar having boundary walls. Since the lands are admittedly covered by the provisions of the Act, the Civil Court inherently lacked jurisdiction to go into the question of title.

7. The appeal is accordingly allowed and the suit stands dismissed in so far as it relates to 0.7 acres of land purchased by the appellant. No costs.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1995 Same Parties Deokinandan and ors. vs Surajpal and ors. Same Subject Civil Same Judge K. Ramaswamy and; B.L. Hansaria, JJ. Acts & Sections Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1951 ...

Civil Lack of jurisdiction Period of limitation civil court trial court Res integra high court