- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Chattar Singh And Others v. Thakur Prasad Singh .
Factual and Procedural Background
The matter concerns an appeal arising out of a suit in which, at a later stage, certain remedies were sought under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 (as amended by U.P. Act 21 of 1966). During the pendency of the appeal before the Supreme Court, a notification was issued under Section 4 of the Act. The appellants then moved an application (CMP No. 19 of 1975) seeking an order in terms of the operation of the Consolidation of Holdings Act.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether, upon issuance of a notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953, the suit and the pending appeal before the Supreme Court stand statutorily abated by virtue of Section 5(2)(a) of the Act.
Arguments of the Parties
- The appellants asserted (through CMP No. 19 of 1975) that, due to the Section 4 notification and the operation of Section 5(2)(a), the suit and the appeal must abate.
- Counsel for the respondent, in view of the statutory provision and the Supreme Court’s earlier decision, agreed that the appellants’ position was correct.
Table of Precedents Cited
| Precedent | Rule or Principle Cited For | Application by the Court |
|---|---|---|
| Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh & Others, AIR 1968 SC 714, (1968) 2 SCR 95 | That by reason of the statutory abatement under the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act (on issuance of the relevant notification), even appeals pending before the Supreme Court will abate. | The Court relied on this holding to conclude that the pending appeal before it also abated consequent upon the Section 4 notification and Section 5(2)(a). |
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court noted that during the pendency of the appeal, a notification under Section 4 of the U.P. Consolidation of Holdings Act was issued. It held that, by operation of Section 5(2)(a), there is a statutory abatement of the suit and of proceedings arising from it that are pending. The Court further relied on its earlier decision in Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh & Others, which had authoritatively held that this statutory abatement extends to appeals pending before the Supreme Court as well.
Given the clarity of the statutory provision and the binding precedent, and noting that respondent’s counsel agreed with the appellants’ position, the Court concluded that both the suit and the appeal stood abated. The Court clarified that the parties could work out their rights before the appropriate consolidation authorities.
Holding and Implications
ABATED / DISPOSED OF AS ABATED: The Court held that the suit and the appeal stand abated and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
Implications: The immediate consequence is that the civil suit and the pending Supreme Court appeal cannot proceed further in view of statutory abatement following the Section 4 notification. The parties were left free to pursue or work out their rights before the appropriate consolidation authorities under the consolidation law. The opinion applies an existing statutory rule and the prior Supreme Court decision cited, and does not indicate that it lays down any new precedent beyond that application. The parties were directed to bear their costs throughout.
V.R Krishna Iyer, J.— The appeal relates to a suit and later stage thereof certain remedies were sought under the U.P Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1953 as amended by U.P Act 21 of 1966. During the pendency of the appeal in this Court, a notification has been issued under Section 4 of the Act. By virtue of the operation of Section 5(2)(a) of the said Act, there is a statutory abatement of the suit and other proceedings pending therefrom. This Court has in Ram Adhar Singh v. Ramroop Singh AIR 1968 SC 714, (1968) 2 SCR 95 held that even appeals pending before this Court will abate consequent on the above statutory provision. The appellants have moved in CMP No. 19 of 1975 for passing an order of Holdings Act. Counsel for the respondent faced with the decision of this Court and the clear statutory provision agrees that the stand taken by the appellants is correct. We therefore hold that the suit and the appeal stand abated. It is open to the parties to work out their rights before the appropriate consolidation authorities. With this direction, the appeal is disposed of as abated. Parties will bear their costs throughout.
Alert