TMI Blog1999 (4) TMI 577X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eason of expression of a view contra, by another Single Judge of Indore Bench in second appeal No.498 of 1965, (Yakub son of Kasamji v. Yakub son of Fakir Mohammad Ors.) 3. On however a detail analysis of facts it appears that the plaintiff- respondent being the Zamindar of village Kamalpur, during the subsistence of the Zamindari, executed two mortgage-deeds dated 4.8.1947 and 5.1.1948 in favour of the defendant-appellant for securing thereunder a loan against movable property and houses, Zamindari and Khudkasht lands. The possession of the mortgaged property as the record shows was delivered to the mortgagee-defendant and in a suit filed for redemption of the mortgage, the trial court as noted above decreed the suit with an express finding that the plaintiff was entitled to redeem the mortgage. 4. Be it noted here that the Madhya Bharat Zamindari Abolition Act has been engrafted into the statute book for acquisition of rights of proprietors in villages, Muhals, Chaks or blocks settled on Zamindari system so as to subserve the public purposes of the improvement of agriculture and financial condition of agriculturists and came into force on 25th June, 1951. 5. Section 2c, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or Proprietor only who has been allowed by the statute to obtain the benefit. The mortgagee cannot be allowed to claim a better title by reason of the provisions as noted above than he has prior to the enactment of the statute. 8. As regards the Yakub's case the High Court in paragraph 13 of the Judgment observed:- "True, for the view taken in Yakub's case (supra) reliance is placed mainly by the learned single judge, on a decision rendered by another learned single judge of this court in Bhagwant v. Ramchandra (1961 JLJ 286). In that decision also, a simplistic view of the definition was taken and relying on Section 2(a)(a) read with sub-clause (2) of section 2 of Qanoon Mal, Gwalior State, the rights of Zamindar/proprietor were subrogated to that of his mortgagee and the latter was even held entitled under Section 38 to claim to be a "Pakka tenant" and thereby to keep alive his interest in the mortgaged "Khudkasht" land in direct opposition to the object and purpose of Section 4(1)(f). Reference was also made in Yakub's' case (supra) to a Bench decision of this Court in Khumansingh v. Dhansingh (1971 RN 351), but, in our opinion, reliance thereon was misconceived. In that case ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sht lands of the appellant by virtue of clause (i) of the inclusive part of the definition of `Khudkasht' contained in Section 5(23) of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, the appellant cannot succeed in his claim that he has acquired Khatedari rights in respect of those lands on the basis of the provisions contained in sub- section (4) of Section 5 and sub-section (1) of section 29 of the Act. Sub-section (4) of Section 5 provides that notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) of Section 5 the Zamindar or Biswedar shall subject to the provisions of Section 29, continue to retain the possession of his Khudkasht, recorded as such in the annual registers before the date of vesting. The words "continue to retain the possession", imply that lands which are recorded as Khudkasht in the annual register before the date of vesting should also be in possession of the Zamindar or Biswedar on the date of vesting and if he is in possession of such lands he can continue to retain the possession of the same subject to the provisions of of Section 29. Sub-section (1) of Section 29 prescribes that as from the date of vesting of an estate, the Zamindar or Biswedar thereof shall be a malik of any ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecision in the later judgment was on the peculiar facts of the case. It is further to be noted that Meharban Singh's case came to be decided as early as 1970 and has been followed for last three decades in the State of Madhya Pradesh and innumerable number of matters have been dealt with on the basis thereof and in the event, a different view is expressed today, so far as this specific legislation is concerned, it would unsettle the situation in the State of Madhya Pradesh and it is on this score also that reliance on the doctrine of `stare decisis' may be apposite. While it is true that the doctrine has no statutory sanction and the same is based on a Rule of convenience and expediency and as also on `Public Policy' but in our view, the doctrine should and ought always to be strictly adhered to by the courts of law to sub-serve the ends of justice. 12. This Court in Muktul v. Mst. Manbhari Ors. (1959 SCR 1099), explained the scope of the doctrine of stare decisis with reference to Halsbury's Laws of England and Corpus Juris Secundum in the manner following:- "The principles of `Stare Decisis' is thus stated in Halsbury's Laws of England: "Apart from any question as to the Cour ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... about a situation of chaos - a situation which ought always to be avoided. 15. In Raj Narain Pandey Ors. v. Sant Prasad Tewari Ors. (1973 (2) SCR 835 , H.R. Khanna, J. (as he then was) observed at page 840 of the Report as follows:- "In the matter of the interpretation of a local statute, the view taken by the High Court over a number of years should normally be adhered to and not disturbed. A different view would not only introduce and element of uncertainty and confusion, it would also have the effect of unsettling transactions which might have been entered into on the faith of those decisions. The doctrine of stare decisis can be aptly invoked in such a situation. As observed by Lord Evershed M.R. in the case of Brownsea Haven Properties v. Poole Corpn., there is well established authority for the view that a decision of long standing on the basis of which many persons will in the course of time have arranged their affairs should not lightly be disturbed by a superior court not strictly bound itself by the decision." 16. Recently in Bishamber Dass Kohli v. Satya Bhalla (1993 (1) SCC 566) J.S. Verma, J. (as he then was) observed in respect of a provision of the East Punj ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hat even long-established conveyancing practice, although not as authoritative as a judicial decision, will cause the House of Lords to hesitate before declaring it wrong and (b) In Button v. Director of Public Prosecution, Swain v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1966 AC 591) House of Lords observed:- "In Corpus Juris Secundum, a contemporary statement of American Law the stare decisis rule has been stated to be a principle of law which has become settled by a series of decisions generally is binding on the courts and should be followed in similar cases. It has been stated that this rule is based on expediency and public policy and should be strictly adhered to by the courts. Under this rule courts are bound to follow the common law as it has been judicially declared in previously adjudicated cases and rules of substantive law should be reasonably interpreted and administered. This rule has to preserve the harmony and stability of the law and to make as steadfast as possible judicially declared principles affecting the rights of property, it being indispensable to the due administration of justice, especially by a court of last resort, that a question once deliberately examined a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
