Rana Sheo Ambar Singh Vs. Allahabad
Bank Ltd.  INSC 61 (18 February 1977)
BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH (CJ) BEG, M. HAMEEDULLAH
(CJ) GUPTA, A.C.
CITATION: 1977 AIR 1552 1977 SCR (3) 33 1977
SCC (2) 604
Execution of a mortgage decree--Proprietary
rights in Sir, Khudkhast land and grove land which were mortgaged were
extinguished and the Bhumidari right an altogether new right created by U.P.
Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. Act 1 of 1951)--Whether
trees being a part of a grove are included in the "grove-land" which
vests in the U.P. State Government free from all encumbrances--Scope of section
6(a)(i). 6(h) and 18 of the U.P. Zamindari Abolition & Land Reforms Act,
In Rana Sheo Ambar Singh v. Allahabad Bank
Ltd., Allahabad (1962) 2 SCR p.441, this Court held that the respondent could
not enforce his rights under the mortgage by the sale of the new Bhumidari
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 follow 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 appellant was ordered by the
executing Court taking the view that there is a distinction between the trees
and a grove and grove land. The Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court
(Lucknow Bench) upheld the views of the Executing Court and dismissed the
appeal Allowing the appeal by certificate, the Court,
HELD: (1) The view that there is a distinction
between trees and a grove and grove land and, therefore execution against trees
in groves could be proceeded against cannot be accepted in the light of the
definition of the intermediary grove under s. 3(13) of the U.P. Zamindari
Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, viz., "intermediary's grove"
means groveland held or occupied by intermediary as such. [34 DE, H] (2) Groves
are only collection of trees in plots of land so as to preclude cultivation in
them. The uncut trees are deemed to be parts of the land. The proposition is
well settled under the general law, that trees, before they are cut. form parts
of 'land'. And are inseparable part is always included in the whole. [34E-F]
(3) Section 18(1)(a) of the Act provide that an "intermediary grove"
bhumidary property. Rights in it are parts of bhumidari rights. [34F]
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal
No. 2041 of 1968.
(From the Judgment and Decree dated 2.2.1966
of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) Lucknow in First Execution Appeal No
S.N. Prasad, for the appellant.
G.C. Mathur and O.P. Rana for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
BEG, C.J.--This appeal by certificate raises the simple question whether
certain trees, said to be part of a grove, are included in 34 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 of the Act in the State of Uttar
Pradesh, new bhumidhari rights came into existence under section 18 of the Act.
It also held' that the only way in which a mortgagee could enforce his right
against the mortgage or 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 against by the mortgagee proceed against 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 in 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 grove land, 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 of the intermediary's
grove-under section 3(13) of the Act which says "intermediary grove means
grove-land held or occupied by an intermediary as such". This means that
"grove-land" and an "intermediary's groves are equated and
groves are on ly collections of trees in plots of land so as to preclude
cultivation in them. The uncut trees are deemed to be parts of the
Section 18(1)(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 law, 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 and set aside the judgments and decrees of
the High Court and the Execution Court with costs.
S.R. Appeal allowed.