SHAM KARTIK SINGH versus MATHURA

SHAM KARTIK SINGH versus MATHURA

Amended s.19 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 is procedural in nature and applied to pending appeals by s.31 of the Amending Act; the appellants had furnished in the trial court documents and particulars that amounted to substantial compliance with amended s.19 and rules 239A/239B, and therefore the Board of Revenue erred in setting aside the decree and remanding the cases for retrial; the appeals are allowed and the Board's order is set aside and remanded for decision in accordance with law.

Parties
Appellant: Sham Kartik Singh; Respondent: Mathura
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
31 August 1962
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeals Nos. 484 to 489 of 1958 / Appeal by Special Leave From Order Dated August 6, 1954 of the U.p. Board of Revenue
Outcome
Appeals allowed
Legal Topics
Ejectment, Retrospectivity of Statute, Substantial Compliance With Procedural Requirements, U.p. Tenancy Act, 1939 S.6 and Amended S.19, Rules 239 a and 239 B
Tenancy Law Property Law Civil Procedure Ejectment Retrospectivity of Statute Substantial Compliance With Procedural Requirements U.p. Tenancy Act, 1939 S.6 and Amended S.19 Rules 239 a and 239 B

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sham Kartik Singh

Appellant

Mathura

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals Nos. 484 to 489 of 1958 / Appeal by Special Leave From Order Dated August 6, 1954 of the U.p. Board of Revenue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether amended s.19 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 applied to pending appeals
  2. 2 Whether the appellants had substantially complied with the requirements of amended s.19 and rules 239A and 239B
  3. 3 Whether the Board of Revenue was justified in remanding the cases for retrial on the ground of non-compliance

Ratio Decidendi

Amended s.19 of the U.P. Tenancy Act, 1939 is procedural in nature and applied to pending appeals by s.31 of the Amending Act; the appellants had furnished in the trial court documents and particulars that amounted to substantial compliance with amended s.19 and rules 239A/239B, and therefore the Board of Revenue erred in setting aside the decree and remanding the cases for retrial; the appeals are allowed and the Board's order is set aside and remanded for decision in accordance with law.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed

Orders

  • Set aside the order of the Board of Revenue and remand the cases to it for decision in accordance with law
  • Board to decide the respondents' contention regarding acquisition of adivasi rights under the U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950 (U.P. I of 1951); if necessary the Board may call for relevant findings of fact from the Trial Court