RAM KISHAN V. DAYA NAND THROUGH L.R.S.

INTRODUCTION

Ram Kishan v. Daya Nand through L.R.S. is a case that revolves around the nuances and different parts of the local Revenue Acts. The case was an appellate authority for two civil appeals having almost the same factual matrix and therefore the ruling in this case should influence future legal processes pertaining to the issues in the Indian legal system, and clarify the interpretations and implementations of pertinent legal laws and concepts. The case would no doubt be a precedent for future legal recourse. The beauty of the case lies in its legal position and the rationale applied by the Supreme Court (hereinafter SC) Judges. The title “Custodian of Laws” given to the SC is well justified in this case.

FACTS OF THE CASE

As mentioned above, the case is that of a civil appeal arising out of Special Leave Petitions filed in High Court of Punjab and Haryana (hereinafter HC). The Special Leave Petitions were filed in response to the order of the trial court. A sale deed was issued by the respondent to one Ram Kishan and Jit Singh and one to Siri Bhagwan and Sunil. An order under Section 118 of Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, Naksha Bey,[1] was passed on 16^th January, 1989.

The respondents then issued a pre-emption for their land, the suit for which filed by the appellants, was dismissed by the trial court on 31^st October 1990. The appellants filed the appeal to the first appellate court but it decreed the pre-emption on 3^rd October 1991. The HC further, through its impugned Judgement, upheld the order of the first appellate court, aggrieved of which, the appellants approached the SC.

ISSUE OF THE CASE

1. Is the impugned judgement valid?
2. Can the respondent issue pre-emption for their land after executing the sale deed?

JUDGEMENT

The impugned judgement of the HC was based on the legal stance that co-sharers’ status only vanishes upon the execution of the instrument of partition in accordance with Section 121 of the Revenue Act[2], a statute that also applies to the State of Haryana. But the SC held that both that perspective and legal stance were incorrect or erroneous.

The SC relied on the recent Judgement of Jhabbar Singh (deceased) through legal heirs v. Jagtar Singh[3]where it gave two legal propositions-

• Firstly, the case of Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar[4], in its constitutional bench, held that in order to use the right of pre-emption, the pre-emptor must have such a right on the date of the sale as well as the date of the court’s first-instance ruling.
• Secondly, when an order is granted under Section 118 of the Revenue Act for the partition of the property, the joint status ceases to exist.

The SC’s propositions were based on the rationale of Order XX, Rule 18, Sub Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908[5] which says that the preliminary decree of the partition decides the share and entitlement to division and separate possession. The date of partition is the day the Naksha Bey is instructed or the order under Section 118 of the Revenue Act is passed and the parties’ positions and rights are established. On the day of the decision, the joint status ceases to exist. The day on which an order under Section 121 of the Revenue Act is made, or the day on which Naksha Zeem is drafted and the partition deed is recorded is not the actual partition date, rather a follow-up action.

From the facts, it was clear that since the Naksha Bey, under Section 118 of Revenue Act, was drafted on 16^th January, 1989, the joint status ceased to exist there and therefore the respondents did not have any right to issue any kind of pre-emption after the date. Therefore, when the rights ceased to exist, the question for issuing any such decree, also ceased with those rights. Thus, the HC’s impugned Judgement, which upheld the first appellate court’s order, decreeing the pre-emption of the land, was set aside and the trial court’s decision was dismissed. Any amount deposited by the respondents could be withdrawn along with the interests and any existing petitions were to disposed of thereafter.

ANALYSIS

When we look at the Judgement, we could clearly see the Jurisprudential Concept of Possession. Legally speaking, possession is the clear purpose of ownership behind the acquisition of either a significant amount of physical control over a tangible asset, like land or chattel, or the legal power to manage an intangible asset, like a credit. Although possession of land and chattels was once a concrete reality, it is now frequently an abstraction. Even if he may be hundreds of miles away from the item he owns, an employer has ownership of an object even while a servant or employee may only have custody of it.

In short, possessor is considered to be the owner in the eyes of law and enjoys all the rights of the owner but does not “own” it. When we analyse it through the lens of jurisprudence, the Court ordered that since the joint status that means the joint ownership ceased to exist, all the rights ceased to exist with that agreement. Now the question in front of the Courts was when does those rights cease to exist. The lower courts including the HC did not consider this which was answered by the SC in its Judgement. The SC relied upon the earlier precedents to lay down the above legal principles which further would become a precedent for upcoming litigations. In a nutshell, the concept of ownership and possession is evident here as when the person parts with his right to own, he parts with his rights as well (here the right to pre-empt) which ceases in this particular scenario, when the Naksha Bey is issued or drafted as per Section 118 of the Revenue Act.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the case Ram Kishan v. Daya Nand through its L.R.S, though simple in facts, does explore the basic and fundamental concepts of the Local Revenue Acts and thereby becomes one of the major authorities for the subsequent cases falling under this domain. The case has made it clear when does the owner parts with its rights over the land, a point where the lower courts including the HC made a mistake. Thus, the case serves as an important precedent for the upcoming litigations in these aspects. The precedent set by this case is likely to reverberate in future disputes, guiding their interpretation and application. As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the significance of this decision will serve as a reminder of the critical role the judiciary plays in shaping the contours of revenue law. Ultimately, this case will serve as a testament to the complexity and importance of the legal framework surrounding revenue matters and the ongoing quest for equity and fairness in the legal system.

This analysis is written by Kush Shanker from Maharashtra National Law University Aurangabad, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.

[1] Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, § 118, No. 17, Acts of Punjab State Legislature, 1887 (India)

[2] Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, § 121, No. 17, Acts of Punjab State Legislature, 1887 (India)

[3] Jhabbar Singh (deceased) through legal heirs v. Jagtar Singh, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 431

[4] Shyam Sunder v. Ram Kumar, (2001) 8 SCC 24

[5] Civil Procedure Code, 1908, No. 5, Acts of Parliament, 1908 (India)

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.

Admin