Skip to content


Champa Lal and ors. Vs. Rameshwar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty;Civil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided On
Case NumberCivil Revn. No. 523 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1967Raj233
ActsGovernment Grants Act, 1895 - Sections 1(2) and 2; Rajasthan Adaptation of Central Laws Ordinance, 1950; Rajasthan and Subsequently by Adaptation of Laws (No. 2) Order, 1956; Constitution of India - Article 372A; Crown Grants Act, 1895; Transfer of Property, 1882 - Sections 1
AppellantChampa Lal and ors.
RespondentRameshwar
Appellant Advocate S.K. Jindal, Adv.
Respondent Advocate Hastimal, Adv.
DispositionPetition dismissed
Cases ReferredAkram Mea v. Municipal Corporation Secunderabad
Excerpt:
- .....central laws ordinance 1950 was passed by the then rajpramukh. it came into force on 24-1-50. the crown grants act 1895 was extended to rajasthan under item 35 of it with effect from 24-1-50. 7. it continued in force after the coming into force of the constitution under article 372 of the constitution the act is within the legislative competence of the state under item no. 6, list iii. schedule vii of the constitution, which runs--'transfer of property other than agricultural laud; registration of deeds and documents.'8. it is true that it was extended without any adaptation. but it is quite clear that the intention was to extend the provisions of the act to rajasthan the adaptation of laws (no. 2) order 1956 was passed under article 372a of the constitution. it only adapted the.....
Judgment:
ORDER

Jagat Narayan, J.

1. This is a revision application by the defendants against an order of the Civil Judge, Pali, holding that a sale-deed executed by the Chairman, Municipal Board. Pali, for Rs. 99/- in favour of the plaintiff is not inadmissible in evidence for want of registration, because the provisions of the Transfer of Property Act do not apply to it as it is a transfer covered by Section 2 of the Government Grants Act 1895. The revision application has been opposed on behalf of the plaintiff.

2. The first contention on behalf of the applicants is that the Government Grants Act 1895 is no longer applicable to Rajasthan. Section 1(2) of the Act as it stands today reads as follows:

'It extends to the whole of India except the territories which immediately before 1-11-56 were comprised in Part B States.'

3. Rajasthan was a Part B State before 1st November 1956.

4. The above Sub-section stood as follows before it was adapted under the Adaptation of Laws (No. 2) Order 1956:

'It extends to the whole of India except Part B States.'

5. By the Adaptation of Laws (No. 2) Order 1956 for 'Part B States' the words 'the territories which immediately before the 1st November 1956 were comprised in Part B States' were substituted.

6. Before however Rajasthan became a Part B State under the Constitution the Rajasthan Adaptation of Central Laws Ordinance 1950 was passed by the then Rajpramukh. It came into force on 24-1-50. The Crown Grants Act 1895 was extended to Rajasthan under item 35 of it with effect from 24-1-50.

7. It continued in force after the coming into force of the Constitution under Article 372 of the Constitution The Act is within the legislative competence of the State under Item No. 6, List III. Schedule VII of the Constitution, which runs--

'Transfer of property other than agricultural laud; registration of deeds and documents.'

8. It is true that it was extended without any adaptation. But it is quite clear that the intention was to extend the provisions of the Act to Rajasthan The Adaptation of Laws (No. 2) Order 1956 was passed under Article 372A of the Constitution. It only adapted the Government Grants Act as it stood on that date. There was no intention to repeal the Crown Grants Act 1895 which had already been extended to Rajasthan under the Rajasthan Adaptation of Central Laws Ordinance 1950. The name of the Act was changed to the Government Grants Act 1895 after the coming into force of the Constitution.

9. I accordingly find that the Government Grants Act 1895 is applicable to Rajasthan.

10. The next contention on behalf of the applicants is that Section 2 of the Government Grants Act is not applicable to the sale-deed in question, as it is a commercial transaction and not a Government grant. I am unable to accept this contention. The Act does not make any distinction between a commercial transaction and a non-commercial transaction. Section 2 is applicable not only to grants but is also applicable to every transfer of land or of any interest therein.

11. Two decisions were referred to by learned counsel for the applicants. In Munshi Lal v. Gopi Ballabh, AIR 1914 All 120 a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court held that a lease executed on behalf of the Government was not exempt from registration under the provisions of Section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act. The learned Judges relied on an earlier decision of their Court in Dost Mohammed Khan v Bank of Upper India (1906) 3 All LJ 628. A Crown grant was mortgaged in that case and it was claimed that the grant was not subject to sale at the suit of the mortgagee This contention was repelled with the following observations:

'It is difficult to interpret Section 2 of the Crown Grants Act but from a perusal of the preamble to the Act it is reasonably clear that the object of the Legislature in passing the Act was to validate any provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations over which might be contained in any Crown Grant and which otherwise might be held to be obnoxious to the restrictions imposed in respect of grants generally by the Transfer of Property Act. We do not think that it was intended by the Legislature that unconditional grants made by the Crown free from restrictions as to alienation should not be the subject of a sale at the suit of a mortgagee.'

12. With all respect to the learned Judges who decided AIR 1914 All 120, I do not see how the decision in (1906) 3 All LJ 628 was at all applicable to the facts of the case before them. At any rate it was not brought to their notice that Section 2 of the Crown Grants Act was applicable to a transfer of land or interest in land made by or on behalf of the Crown. A lease of immovable property is certainly a transfer of an interest in land.

13. The decision in Akram Mea v. Municipal Corporation Secunderabad, AIR 1967 Andh Pra 859 is of no help as it is based on the finding that the lease in question was not executed by or on behalf of the Government.

14. I am accordingly of the opinion that the decision of the court below is correct and dismiss the revision application. In the circumstances of the case, I leave the parties to bear their own costs of it.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //