JAGAT SINGH versus KARAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & ORS.

Citation: [1987] 2 S.C.R. 616 · Decided: 24-03-1987 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.P. THAKKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
JAGAT SINGH 
v. 
KARAN SINGH (DEAD) BY LRS. & 
..... 
ORS. 
,~ 
MARCH 24, 1987 
• 
B 
.... 
Tehri Garhwal Bhumi Sambandhi Adhikar Niyam: s.6(4)-
Benefit under-'Spinda' of the Original 'khaikar' living with him as a 
member of his family-Whether entitled to become a sub-tenant of the ¥ 
head tenant-Provision applicable to Hindus only. 
Section 6(4) of the Tehri Garbwal Bbumi Samhandbi Adbikar 
...l._ ~ 
c 
. 
Niyam provides that brother or 'sapinda' (brother, nephew etc.) of the 
deceased sub-tenant will be entitled to be recognised as a 'kbaikari' if he 
was jointly living with the deceased during bis life time in the manner of ,,. 
a member of a joint family. 
D 
The appeUant, a 'sapinda' of the original 'Khaikari' (sub-tenant) 
• 
h 
had started living with the deceased from the age of 12 or 13 years as a 
member of the latter's family. He bas been sharing food and shelter 
with the deceased and was engaged in cultivating the land along with 
the deceased during his lifetime. At the time of the death of the later the 
f 
obsequies were also performed by him. 
·+ 
E 
The trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant fulfilled 
the conditions prescribed by s.6(4) of the Act and was thus entitled to 
become 'kbaikari' (sub-tenant) of the respondent head-tenant. The -
lower appellant court and the High Court took the view that s.6(4) was 
applicable not only to Hindus but also to Muslims and Christians, and, 
_.,_ 
F therefore, it was not sufficient for the appeUant to have shared the food 
·. 
and shelter and carried on the agricultural operations with the deceased 
~ 
and that it must be shown that be was in fact a member of the joint 
family. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court, 
G 
HELD: The High Court was in error in holding that only a 
member of an undivided family could claim the benefit of s.6(4) of the 
. "· . 
Tehri Garbwal Bbumi Sambandhi Adhikar Niyam. (620C-D) 
---
Section 6(4) of the Act is designed to apply only to Hindus. The 
H expression 'sapinda' employed in that provision is peculiar to traditional 
616 
-
JAGAT SINGH v. KARAN SINGH (THAKKAR, J.l 
617 
Hindu Law and it would be altogether inapposite in the context of A 
{ 
citizens of Muslim or Christian faith. [619C) 
The expression "Jeevit Samay Men Abibhakt Kol Ki Reeti Se 
Uske Shareek Raha Ho" used in s.6(4) clearly provides a clue to the 
intention of the legislature to benefit such a 'sapinda' who had lived 
with the issueless 'khaikar' and shared with him food, shelter, I•· 
~as 
also joys and sorrows along with him 'as if' he was a member of the 
joint family without in fact being one, Even if a separate brother or 
newhew were to live with an issueless tiller during his lifetime just as a 
member of the Undivided Hindn Family would be expected to ~o, the 
benefit of becoming a sub-tenant of the head tenant is made available to 
him. [620A-C; 619G] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 
1403(N) of 1973. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.1973 of the Allahabad 
High Court in Second Appeal No. 2866of 1965. 
S.N. Singh and T.N. Singh forthe Appellant. 
-~ · 
Rameshwar Nath and Ravinder Nath for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by, 
THAKKAR, J. The controversy in this appeal centres around 
the interpretation of Section 6(4) of the Tehri Garhwal Buhmi 
Sambandhi Adhikar Niyam, enacted by the erstwhile State of Tehri 
Garhwal which continued to remain in force even after its merger in 
the State of Uttar Pradesh. 
The trial court came to the conclusion that the petitioner was 
entitled to become the 'kahikari' (subtenant) of the respondents who 
were 'maurusidars' (head tenants) of the land in question by virtue by 
the said provision and decreed the plaintiff's suit. The lower appellate 
court and the High Court took a contrary view and dismissed the suit. 
The original plaintiff has preferred the present appeal by special leave 
and has contended that the interpretation placed by the trial court was 
the correct interpretation of the relevant provision and that the Lower 
Appellate Court and the High Court were in error in taking the con-
trary view. 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
618 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1987] 2 S.C.R. 
The facts in so far as material are not in dispute. All the Courts 
have concurred in the finding that the petitioner was a 'sapinda' of Jeet 
Ram, the original 'khaikari' (sub-tenant) who.died issueless. From the 
age of about 12 or 13 years the appellant had started living with d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.