SHAM KARTIK SINGH versus MATHURA

Citation: [1963] 3 S.C.R. 904 · Decided: 31-08-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

1961 
Gursahai Saital 
•. 
Cur salrai Saigal 
lneome•Tax, Punjab 
Sarkar J. 
1982 
August 31. 
904 
SUPREME COtJRT REPORTS [1963] 
reasonable cause to comply with the provisions of 
sub-sec.(3). We are unable to see that this provi-
sion in any way affects the construction of sub-
secs.(6) or (8) or assists in the solution of the 
difficulty which has arisen in this oase, The penalty 
under sub-sec.(9) is in addition to the liability 
under 
sub-seo. (6) 
and 
(8) 
which his 
not 
penalty in the real sence, and is leviable for reasons 
different from those on which the levy of interest 
under sub-secs. (6) and (8) is besad. 
The result, therefore, is that these appeals are 
dismissed aud the 
decision of the High Court 
answering the question framed is upheld for the 
reasons earlier mentioned. The respondent will get 
the costs of these appeals. 
Appeals dismissed. 
SHAM KARTIK SINGH 
v. 
MATH ORA 
(P. B. GA.JENDRAGADKAR, K.C.DAs GUPTA and 
RAGHUBER DAYAL, JJ.) 
Te,,ancy Law-Sir la.nds-Suit for ejeclment oflenanta-
Decree-Appeal-Pending appeal provision made for filing 
particulars in suits for ejectment-Statute providing penal~y .of 
di•missal of suit for failure to file particulars-Retrospeciivity 
-If substantial compliance sufficient - U .P .Tenancy Act. 1939 
(U.P. 27 of 1939), ss. 6.16,19-U, P. Tenancy(Amen~ment)Act 
1941(U.P. [I) o/ 19"7),s.31. 
The appellants filed suit under the U.P Tenancy Act, 
1939 for the ejectment of the respondents who were tenants 
+-
4 
of si;. The appellants filed the necessary extracts of pap~rs 
in support of their case. The trial court decreed the suits 
0 
,. _ -I 
3S.C.R. 
SUPREME OURT REPORTS 
901S 
holding the land in suit was sir, that the appellants were sir· 
holders, that each of them did not pay a local rate exceeding 
Rs 25, that he did not hold more then 50 acres of sir land or 
more than 50 acres of sir and khudkast land which had not 
been sublet and that the respondents had not become heredi· 
tary tenants. The respondents preferred appeals before the 
Commissioner. During the pendency of the appeals the U.P 
Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947, amended s.19 of the Act 
.Amended s.19 provided that in suits for ejcctment of tenants 
of sir the sir holder shall; before the first day fixed for recording 
evidence, furnish such particulars as may be prescribed and 
further provided that for failure to file such particulars the 
suit shall be dismissed. Section 31 of the Amending Act 
provided that its provision shall apply to pending suits, app· 
eals etc. The respondents contended that the appellants had 
failed to comply with the provisions of amended s. 19 and 
that the suits should be dismissed. The Commissioner confir-
med all the findings of the trial court and held that there had 
been sufficient compliance with the provisions of amended s. 
19 and according dismissed the appeals. The respondents 
preferred second appeals before the Board of Revenue. The· 
Board held that the prpvisons of amended s.19 and of the rules 
framed ther~uncler had not been compli~d with and remanded 
the case to the trial court for compliance therewith and 
retrial; 
Held, that there had been sufficient compliance with 
the provisions of amended s.19 and the rules framed thereunder 
and that the Board was not justified in remanding the cases 
for retrial. Sec'ion 19 did not bring about any real change 
in the substantive law affecting the question whether land 
was sir or not. Even after the amendment, a sir-holder, in 
order to succeed in his suit, had to establish the same facts 
which he had to establish prior to the amendment. The only 
difference brought about by the amendment was in procedure 
and whereas prior to the amendment a sir-holder could lead 
his evidance without informing .the Court before hand about 
the material he would produce, after the amendment it was_ 
incumbent upon him to furnish such information to the Court 
before the date fixed for recording evidence. The necessary 
particulars had been furnished even prior to the amendment 
and the Commis5ioner could decide the appeals in accordance 
with the provisions of the Act as amended by the amending 
Act. The attention of the Board was not drawn to the relevant 
documents filed by the appellants and it erred in stating that. 
there had been no substantial compliance with the provisions 
of amended s. 19 and of the rules framed thereunder. 
1961 
Sham Kartio Singh 
v. 
M •thu•a 
1961 
Sham Kortic Singh 
v. 
J1 athura 

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