Holding

Section 6(4) is intended to apply only to Hindus, and a sapinda who lived with the deceased sub‑tenant in the manner of a joint family member is entitled to become a sub‑tenant, even if not an actual member of the joint family.

Summary

The case concerned the interpretation of Section 6(4) of the Tehri Garhwal Bhumi Sambandhi Adhikar Niyam, which confers a right to become a sub‑tenant (khaikari) on a 'sapinda' of a deceased issueless sub‑tenant who lived with him as a member of a joint family. The appellant, a sapinda of the deceased sub‑tenant, had lived with him from his early teens, sharing food, shelter and agricultural work, and performed the deceased's obsequies. The trial court held that these facts satisfied the statutory conditions and granted the appellant sub‑tenant status. The lower appellate court and the High Court reversed, holding that the provision applied to all religions and required actual membership of a joint family. The Supreme Court clarified that the term 'sapinda' is rooted in Hindu law, so the provision applies only to Hindus, and that the statutory language allows a person who lived "as if" a member of the joint family to claim the benefit. Consequently, the appellant's claim was upheld and the appellate judgments set aside.

Issues considered

Whether Section 6(4) of the Tehri Garhwal Bhumi Sambandhi Adhikar Niyam applies only to Hindus or to persons of all religions.
Whether the requirement of living "as a member of the joint family" under Section 6(4) necessitates actual membership in a joint Hindu family or can be satisfied by living in the manner of a family member.
Whether the appellant, as a sapinda who lived with the deceased sub‑tenant, is entitled to become a sub‑tenant under the provision.

Legislation cited

Tehri Garhwal Bhumi Sambandhi Adhikar Niyams. 6(4)

Subjects

land rightssub‑tenantsapindajoint familyHindu lawTehri GarhwalSection 6(4)statutory interpretationreligious applicability

Judgment

JAGAT SINGH
A
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
B
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] c
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
1403(N) of 1973.

From the Judgment and Order dated 12.4.1973 of the Allahabad
D
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, E

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. F

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
G
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.
H
618 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1987] 2 S.C.R.

A 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 de-
ceased Jeet Ram. He was sharing food and shelter with Jeet Ram and
was engaged in cultivating the land in question along with Jeet Ram
B , during his life time. He had lived as a member of Jeet Ram's family
and at the time of the death of Jeet Ram the obsequies were performed
by him. Thereafter he was looking after the widow of Jeet Ram.

These facts having been firmly established the trial court upheld
the appellant's right to become 'khaikari' (sub-tenant) of the respon-
C dents in respect of the land in question in the context of the right
conferred by Section 6(4) of the Act. The said provision is in Hindi:

"MRIT KHIAKAR KAR BHAI YA SAPINDA
WARISH (BHAI, BHATEEJA AADI) KEWAL US
DASHA MEN ADHIKAfU HOGA JOB KI WAH US
D MIRT KHAlKAR KE SATH JEEVIT SAMAY MEN
ABIBHAKT KUL KI REETI SE USKE SHAREEK
RAHAHO."

Translated in English, it reads as under:-

E "Brother or Sapinda (brother, newhew etc.) of the
deceased sub-tenant will be entitled if he was jointly living
with the deceased during his life time in the manner of a
joint family."

An analysis of the aforesaid provision reveals that in order to establish ~
F the claim to be recognized as a 'khaikari' under the said provision, one
must establish that:-

(1) He is a 'sapinda' of the deceased sub-tenant such as the
brother or nephew.

G (2) He must have been living as a member of the family with the
deceased during his lifetime in the manner of a member of
the joint family.

The Trial Court took the view that inasmuch as the petitioner
was admittedly a sapinda of deceased Jeet Ram and inasmuch as he
H had been living jointly with the deceased during his life-time, had been
JAGAT SINGH v. KARAN SINGH [THAKKAR, J.] 619

sharing of food and shelter with him and had even performed the
A
obsequies of Jeet Ram, he fulfilled the conditions prescribed by the
said provision and was entitled to become a sub-tenant of the head
tenant. The Lower Appellate Court and the High Court have taken
the view that it is not sufficient for the appellant to have shared the
food and shelter and carried on the agricultural operations with the
deceased. It must be shown that he was in fact a member of the joint B
ij
~ family. The High Court has made sought support from the reasoning
that section 6(4) is applicable not only to Hindus but also to Muslims
I
and Christians. With respect to the High Court this assumption is
-~ -~altogether unwarranted. The expression 'sapinda' employed in section
6(4) is a clear pointer to the conclusion that the said set1ion is designed
to apply only to Hindus. The expression 'sapinda' is peculiar to tradi-
tional Hindu Law and it would be altogether inapposite in the context
c
of citizens of Muslim or Christian faith. Failure to realize this aspect
impelled the High Court to take a view contrary to the view taken by
the trial court as is evident from the following passage:

"As the provisions of section 6 (4) of the Tehri Garhwal D
Bhumi Sambandhi Adhikar Niyam are applicable not only
to Hindus but also to Muslims and Christians etc. who may
be living in Tehri Garhwal, the words "Joint Hindu
Family" were not used and instead the words "ABHI
BHAKT KUL KEE REETI SE USKE SAATH
... SHAREEK RAHA HO" were used. These words when E
applicable to a Hindu must mean a person who was a
member of a Joint Hindu Family of the deceased Khaikar
in this case Jeet Ram."

It appears that the Lower Appellate Court and the High Court
altogether missed to grasp the intendment and purpose of the provi- F
sion. In the absence of such a provision an issueless tiller would experi-
ence great hardship for there would be nobody to assist him in his work
in his lifetime, look after him in his old age, and to take care of his
widow after his death. That is why even if a separated brother or
nephew were to live with him during his life-time, share the food and
shelter with him, and assist him in cultivation, just as a member of the G
Undivided Hindu Family would be expected to do, the benefit of
becoming a sub-tenant is made available to him. Otherwise there was
no point in providing that unless a 'sapinda' lived with him 'as if he was
a member of the joint family' he would not be entitled to such a right.
In fact the provision has evidently been enacted with a view to relieve
the distress of an issueless agriculturist, who is separate from his joint H
620 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1987] 2 S.CR.

A family, so that any one of his sapindas living with him as a member of
the family, assisting him in agriculture, and looking after him, would f'
be entitled to become a 'khaikar' on his demise. The expression
'JEEVIT SAMAY, MEN ABIBHAKT KUL KI REETI SE USKE
SHAREEK RAHA HO' clearly provides a clue to the intention of the
legislature to benefit such a person who has lived with the issueless
B
khaikar and shared with him food, shelter, labour, as also joys and
sorrows along with him 'as if' he was a member of the joint family Y..,
without in fact being one. The prospect of acquiring such a right would
provide motivation to look after and render services to the issueless
land holder for it would be unreasonable to expect him to do so self- ~ ..io..._ _ •
lessly, the world being what it is.
c
We are therefore of the opinion that the lower appellate court
and the High Court have entirely misunderstood the provision in hold- -..
ing that only a member of an Undivided Family could claim the benefit
of section 6(4). If such were the case there was no need to make such
D an elaborate provision. It would have been sufficient to say that a
member of his joint family alone could claim such a right.

We are satisfied that the trial court was right in upholding the
claim of the appellant whereas the lower appellate court and the High
Court were in error in taking a contrary view. The appeal is, therefore,
allowed. The judgment and order of the lower appellate court and the
E High Court are set aside. The judgment and decree passed by the trial
court are restored. -
There ·will be no order regarding costs.

P.S.S. Appeal allowed. ~· ''