{"id":19897,"date":"1964-11-06T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1964-11-05T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964"},"modified":"2017-05-28T22:59:13","modified_gmt":"2017-05-28T17:29:13","slug":"kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964","title":{"rendered":"Kapur Chand Jain vs B. S. Grewal & Others on 6 November, 1964"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Kapur Chand Jain vs B. S. Grewal & Others on 6 November, 1964<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1491, \t\t 1965 SCR (2)\t 36<\/div>\n
Author: Hidayatullah<\/div>\n
Bench: Hidayatullah, M.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nKAPUR CHAND JAIN\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nB.   S. GREWAL & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n06\/11\/1964\n\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nBENCH:\nHIDAYATULLAH, M.\nGAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ)\nWANCHOO, K.N.\n\nCITATION:\n 1965 AIR 1491\t\t  1965 SCR  (2)\t 36\n\n\nACT:\nThe  Punjab  Security of Land Tenures Act (10 of 1953),\t ss.\n9(1) (ii) and 14A (1) and (ii) -Non-payment of\trent-Whether\nwithout sufficient cause Determination--If conduct prior  to\nAct can be considered.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe  appellant and respondent were the tenant and  land-lord\nof  certain agricultural lands to which the Punjab  Security\nof  Land Tenures Act, 1953 applied.  The appellant tried  to\navoid  payment\tof rent for each year of  the  lease  period\n(1951-1955),  under one pretext or the other, and for  every\nyear  recoveries of rent were only made through\t the  court.\nAfter  the period of lease expired, the appellant  continued\nto  hold over without paying rent.  So the respondent  filed\ntwo  applications  to the appropriate authorities,  one\t for\narrears of rent under s. 14A(ii) and the other for  eviction\nunder s. 14A(1), on the ground, inter alia, specified in  s'\n9(1)  (ii)  that the appellant had failed to  pay  the\trent\nregularly, without sufficient cause.  On the application for\nrent,  the appellant was asked to pay the arrears  which  he\ndid within the time fixed.  The application for eviction was\ndismissed,  but on appeal by the respondent,  the  appellant\nwas  ordered to be evicted.  The appellant's further  appeal\napplication  for  revision and petition to  the\t High  Court\nunder  Arts.  226  and\t227 of\tthe  Constitution  were\t all\ndismissed.\nIn  the appeal to the Supreme Court it was  contended  that,\n(i)  s. 9(1) (ii) applies only prospectively  and  therefore\nthe conduct of the tenant, prior to the enactment of s.\t 14A\nin  1955,  could not be taken into account  for\t determining\nthat  there  was not sufficient cause for  non-payment,\t and\n(ii)  as the appellant had paid the arrears within the\ttime\nfixed he could not be ,evicted.\nHELD  : Though the appellant could not be evicted  under  s.\n14A(ii)\t his case was covered by s. 14A(1) and his  eviction\ncould  be ordered because, the irregularity in\tpayment\t was\npatent and there was no sufficient cause. [42 A]\nThe necessary condition for the application of s. 9 (1) (ii)\nmay  commence even before the Act came into force  and\tpast\nconduct which is as relevant for the clause as conduct after\nthe  coming into force of the Act, cannot be overlooked.   A\nstatute is not applied retrospectively merely because a part\nof  the\t requisites for its action is drawn- from  a  moment\nprior to its passing. [41 A-C]\nThe scheme of the Act shows that cls. (1) and (ii) of s. 14A\nare  entirely different and that there is  no  inconsistency\nbetween them.  Clause (ii) deals with eviction as punishment\nfor non-compliance with an order to deposit arrears of\trent\nwithin\tthe  time fixed for payment, whereas cl.  (1)  deals\nwith eviction for any of ',he reasons given in s. 9(1),\t one\nof which is non-payment of rent regularly without sufficient\ncause, under s.\t    9(1) (ii) [41 D-E]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 833 of 1962.
\nAppeal by special leave from the order, dated March 9, 1961
\nof the Punjab High Court in Civil Writ No. 291 of 1961.\n<\/p>\n
37<\/span><\/p>\n
B. R. L. Iyengar and T. S. Venkataraman, for the appellant.
\nBishan\tNarain, S. K. Mehta and K. L. Mehta, for  respondent
\nNo. 4.\n<\/p>\n
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
\nHidayatullah,  J. The appellant obtained on lease  from\t the
\n4th   respondent  (Raja\t Charanjit  Singh)  208\t canals\t  of
\nagricultural  land for five years commencing from Rabi\t1951
\nto  Kharif 1955 on an annual rent of Rs. 7,500.\t  The  lease
\ndeed  was registered and was executed on November 20,  1950.
\nThe  appellant paid a sum of Rs. 7,500 as advance  rent\t for
\none year.  There was a tube well on the land and one of\t the
\nterms of the lease was that the Raja would put the tube well
\ninto working order and the lease was to commence on the\t day
\nthis was done.\tThe tube well was repaired on July 11,\t1951
\nand  the  lease\t is  said to have  commenced  on  that\tday.
\nAccording to the appellant the tube well did not deliver the
\nright quantity of water and that led to certain disputes.
\nThe appellant did not pay rent for the subsequent years.  On
\nAugust\t15, 1952 the Raja filed a suit for recovery  of\t Rs.
\n7,500  as rent for Rabi and Kharif, 1951.  He  claimed\tthat
\nRs.  7,500 paid to him was to be retained as deposit  to  be
\nadjusted towards the final payment.  The appellant  resisted
\nthis demand mainly on the ground that the tube well was\t not
\nfunctioning  as required by the lease deed.  This  suit\t was
\ndecreed\t on March 23, 1957 and an amount of Rs. 859-4-0\t was
\nfound  due.  This was because on April 15, 1953\t the  Punjab
\nSecurity of Land Tenures Act, 1953 came into force and under
\ns.  12 of that Act the maximum rent payable by a tenant\t for
\nany land held by him was not to exceed 1\/3rd of the crop  of
\nsuch  land  or of the value of the crop\t determined  in\t the
\nmanner to be prescribed by Rules.  For this period an amount
\nof  Rs.\t 4,313 was held to be the value of the\tproduce\t and
\nafter  making deduction for sundry payments to the Raja\t the
\ndecree\twas for the amount stated.  The appellant paid\tthat
\namount\tforthwith.  The appellant did not pay the  rent\t for
\nthe  years  1952, 1953 and 1954 and on January 5,  1955\t the
\nRaja brought another suit for the recovery of Rs. 22,500  as
\narrears of rent for these three years and on October 8, 1956
\nfiled  a  revised application under s. 14-A(ii)\t added\tfrom
\n1955  to  the  Act.  During the pendency of  this  suit\t the
\nappellant  was asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 7,000 which  he
\ndid on January 22, 1957.  Later, the amount payable under s.
\n12 of the Act was found to be Rs. 13,378-2-0 and on June 21,
\n1957 the appellant deposited the balance.  The appellant did
\nnot pay
\n38<\/span>
\nrent  for  the year 1955 and though his lease  expired\twith
\nKharif, 1955 he continued holding over and did not pay\trent
\nfor Rabi 1956.\tThe Raja made an application on October\t 10,
\n1956  under s. 14-A(1) for the eviction of the appellant  on
\nthe  ground  inter  alia  that he had  failed  to  pay\trent
\nregularly  without sufficient cause.  Under s.\t14-A(1)\t the
\napplication for eviction lay before an Assistant  Collector,
\nFirst  Grade,  while under s. 14-A(ii) the  application\t for
\nrecovery of arrears of rent (to which category belonged\t the
\nrevised\t application  dated October 8, 1956, which  we\thave
\nmentioned  before) lay before an Assistant Collector  Second
\nGrade.\t As  a result the question of the  eviction  of\t the
\ntenant\ton  the ground that he was irregular in\t payment  of
\nrent  was  tried in one court and the  recovery\t proceedings
\nwere  tried in another court.  The proceedings under s.\t 14-
\nA(1)  terminated in favour of the appellant on December\t 24,
\n1958,  the  Assistant  Collector,  First  Grade,   Jullundur
\nholding that the tenant had sufficient cause not to pay rent
\nfixed by the lease deed and the Raja could not claim  eject-
\nment  on  that ground.\tThe Raja appealed.   The  Collector,
\nJullundur District, on May 20, 1959, reversed the order\t and
\ndirected  that the appellant be evicted.  An appeal  by\t the
\nappellant before the Commissioner, Jullundur Division failed
\nas  also  an application for revision before  the  Financial
\nCommissioner,  Punjab.\t The appellant then moved  the\tHigh
\nCourt of Punjab at Chandigarh under Articles 226 and 227  of
\nthe Constitution.  His petition was summarily dismissed by a
\nDivision  Bench\t on March 9, 1961. The appellant  has  filed
\nthis appeal by special leave.\n<\/p>\n
Section\t 14-A  of the Punjab Security of Land  Tenures\tAct,
\n1953 reads as follows :-\n<\/p>\n
\t      “14-A.\tNotwithstanding\t anything   to\t the
\n\t      contrary\tcontained in any other law  for\t the
\n\t      time  being  in  force,  and  subject  to\t the
\n\t      provisions of section 9-A,-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)a land-owner desiring to eject a  tenant
\n\t      under  this Act shall apply in writing to\t the
\n\t      Assistant\t  Collector,  First  Grade,   having
\n\t      jurisdiction, who shall thereafter proceed  as
\n\t      provided for in sub-section (2) of section  10
\n\t      of this Act, and the provisions of sub-section
\n\t      (3)  of the said section shall also  apply  in
\n\t      relation\tto such application,  provided\tthat
\n\t      the  tenants’  rights  to\t compensation,\t and
\n\t      acquisition of occupancy rights, if any, under
\n\t      the  Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (X-VI of  1887),
\n\t      shall not be affected;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)a landowner desiring to recover  arrears
\n\t      of  rent from a tenant shall apply in  writing
\n\t      to the Assistant Col-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      39<\/span><\/p>\n
\t      lector, Second Grade, having jurisdiction, who
\n\t      shall  thereupon\tsend a notice, in  the\tform
\n\t      prescribed,  to the tenant either\t to  deposit
\n\t      the rent or value thereof, if payable in kind,
\n\t      or give proof of having paid it or of the fact
\n\t      that he is not liable to pay the whole or part
\n\t      of the rent, or of the fact of the  landlord’s
\n\t      refusal  to  receive  the same or\t to  give  a
\n\t      receipt,\twithin the period specified  in\t the
\n\t      notice.\tWhere, after summary  determination,
\n\t      as provided for in sub-section (2) of  section
\n\t      10 of this Act, the Assistant Collector  finds
\n\t      that the tenant has not paid or deposited\t the
\n\t      rent, he shall eject the tenant summarily\t and
\n\t      put  the land-owner in possession of the\tland
\n\t      concerned;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii)(a)\tif  a land-lord refuses\t to  accept
\n\t      rent from his tenant or demands rent in excess
\n\t      of  what he is entitled to under this Act,  or
\n\t      refuses  to give a receipt, the tenant may  in
\n\t      writing inform the Assistant Collector, Second
\n\t      Grade, having jurisdiction of the fact;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (b)on   receiving\t such\tapplication   the
\n\t      Assistant Collector shall by a written  notice
\n\t      require  the  landlord  to  accept  the\trent
\n\t      payable  in  accordance with this Act,  or  to
\n\t      give  a receipt, as the case may be, or  both,
\n\t      within 60 days of the receipt of the notice.”
\n\t      In  this connection we may quote the  relevant
\n\t      provisions of s. 9
\n\t      “9(1)  Notwithstanding anything  contained  in
\n\t      any other law for the time being in force,  no
\n\t      land-owner  shall\t be  competent\tto  eject  a
\n\t      tenant except when such tenant-\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (i)   is\ta tenant on the area reserved  under
\n\t      this Act or is a tenant of a small land-owner;
\n\t      or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (ii)fails\t to  pay  rent\tregularly  without
\n\t      sufficient cause; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iii)is\tin   arrears   of   rent   at\tthe
\n\t      commencement of this Act; or\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (iv)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (v)\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\t      (vi)
\n\t      (Vii)
\n\t      Explanation.-For the purposes of clause (iii),
\n\t      a\t tenant shall be deemed to be in arrears  of
\n\t      rent at the
\n\t      40<\/span>
\n\t      commencement of this Act, only if the  payment
\n\t      of arrears is not made by the tenant within  a
\n\t      period  of two months from the date of  notice
\n\t      of the execution of decree or order, directing
\n\t      him to pay such arrears of rent.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Section\t 10 provides the procedure which has to be  followed
\nwhen  the  landlord  makes an  application.   That  section,
\nhowever,  need not be quoted because no question  about\t the
\nright procedure arises here.\n<\/p>\n
It  will  be  noticed that the first clause of\ts.  14-A  is
\ngeneral.  It enables a land-owner to apply for the  eviction
\nof his tenant on any of the grounds stated in the Act in  s.\n<\/p>\n
9.  The\t second clause is designed primarily to\t enable\t the
\nland-owner to recover arrears of rent from a tenant but\t the
\ntenant\t may  be  ordered  to  be  evicted  if\t after\t the
\ndetermination of the rent be does not pay it within the time
\nfixed  by the Collector.  Clause (iii) enables a  tenant  to
\ninform\tthe  Collector of the landlord’s refusal  to  accept
\nrent  from him or of a demand of rent in excess of  what  it
\nshould be under the Act.\n<\/p>\n
-The Rules for the determination of the value of the produce
\nunder  s. 12 did not come into existence till May 19,  1953.
\nThe  appellant has taken advantage of this  circumstance  to
\nplead before us that his failure to pay the rent was  solely
\ndue  to\t his inability to determine the exact  rent  in\t the
\nmanner contemplated in s. 12 and the Rules.  This belies his
\nstatement  that he took the amount to the landlord  but\t the
\nlandlord  refused to receive it.  His statement was  rightly
\nnot believed because if the landlord had refused to  receive
\npayment,  the  appellant would have informed  the  Assistant
\nCollector  under s. 14-A(iii) and asked for protection.\t  He
\ndid  nothing  of the kind.  It is quite clear that  he\ttook
\nadvantage of the new Act to avoid payment of rent.  For\t the
\nfirst  year he did so on the ground that the tube  well\t was
\nnot  functioning  according  to\t the  agreement.   For\t the
\nsubsequent  years he avoided payment on the ground  that  he
\nwas only required to pay 1\/3rd of the produce or its  value.
\nFor  every year a suit had to be filed and  recoveries\twere
\nonly made through the court.  This establishes the very kind
\nof conduct which is contemplated by S. 9 (1 ) (ii) and which
\nfurnishes  a ground for eviction of the tenant under s.\t 14-
\nA(1).\n<\/p>\n
Mr.  Iyengar argues that s. 9(1)(ii)  applies  prospectively
\nand  the conduct of the tenant prior to the enactment of  S.
\n14-A cannot
\n41<\/span>
\nbe  taken into account.\t In our opinion, the conduct of\t the
\ntenant prior to the coming into force of the new section can
\nbe  taken into account.\t No doubt a statute must be  applied
\nprospectively.\tBut a statute is not applied retrospectively
\nbecause\t a  part of the requisites for its action  is  drawn
\nfrom  a moment of time prior to its passing.  The clause  in
\nquestion  makes\t a  particular conduct\tthe  -round  for  an
\napplication  for eviction.  The necessary condition for\t the
\napplication  of s. 9 (1) (ii) may commence even\t before\t the
\nAct  came into force and past conduct which is\tas  relevant
\nfor the clause as conduct after the coming into force of the
\nAct,  cannot  be overlooked.  The Tribunals  were  therefore
\nright  in considering conduct of the appellant prior to\t the
\ncoming\tinto force of s. 14-A while determining whether\t the
\nappellant was irregular in paying the rent.
\nMr. Iyengar next contends that as under cl. (ii) of s.\t14-A
\nthe  appellant was asked to pay the arrears of rent  and  he
\npaid them within the time fixed, no eviction can be ordered.
\nClause\t(ii)  deals  with eviction as  punishment  for\tnon-
\ncompliance  with the orders of the court.  Clause (1)  deals
\nwith evictions for any of the reasons given in s. 9 (1). One
\nsuch  reason  is  that the tenant has  failed  to  pay\trent
\nregularly  without  sufficient cause.\tEviction  under\t the
\nsecond\tclause\tis for failure to carry out  the  orders  to
\ndeposit\t arrears of rent within the time fixed\tfor  payment
\nand  eviction  under the first clause is a penalty  for\t not
\npaying\tthe  rent regularly without sufficient\tcause.\t The
\nclauses\t are on different footing and as the scheme  of\t the
\nAct  itself  shows  different Tribunals\t determine  the\t two
\nissues.\t The appellant tried to have the various proceedings
\nconsolidated  in  the same court, but  curiously  enough  he
\nasked  that the proceedings for the recovery of\t arrears  of
\nrent  should  be stayed. His motive is\tquite  apparent.  He
\nwanted to defend himself against liability arising tinder s.
\n0 (Ion\tthe  ground that he could not pay the rent  till  1
\n1\/3rd of the or its value was determined under the Rules. We
\nabove that his statement was that he wanted to pay the extra
\namount\tbut  the landlord did not receive it.  It  is  quite
\nobviously  that he avoided Payment over the years under\t one
\npretext\t or  the  other and the\t Tribunal-,  were  right  in
\nholding that be had failed to make out sufficient cause\t for
\nnon-payment.   Indeed such a finding giving concurrently  by
\nthe  High  Court  and the three\t Tribunals  below  would  be
\nsufficient  for\t the  disposal of the case.   We  have\tonly
\nallowed the argument to be used because Mr. Iyengar  claimed
\nthat  conditions on which persons can be evicted  under\t the
\ntwo clauses of s. 14-A were inconsistent.  On examination it
\nis  apparent  that the reasons for eviction  under  the\t two
\nclauses are
\n3Sup.165 4
\n42<\/span>
\nentirely  different.   The appellant could  not\t be  evicted
\nunder  the second clause of S. 14-A but it is  obvious\tthat
\nhis  case is covered by the first clause.  The\tirregularity
\nin payment is patent and there was no sufficient cause.
\nThe  appeal  fails and it is dismissed\twith  costs.  Appeal
\ndismissed.\n<\/p>\n
43<\/span><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Kapur Chand Jain vs B. S. Grewal & Others on 6 November, 1964 Equivalent citations: 1965 AIR 1491, 1965 SCR (2) 36 Author: Hidayatullah Bench: Hidayatullah, M. PETITIONER: KAPUR CHAND JAIN Vs. RESPONDENT: B. S. GREWAL & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06\/11\/1964 BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. BENCH: HIDAYATULLAH, M. GAJENDRAGADKAR, P.B. (CJ) […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-19897","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nKapur Chand Jain vs B. S. Grewal & Others on 6 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Kapur Chand Jain vs B. S. Grewal & Others on 6 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1964-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-05-28T17:29:13+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Kapur Chand Jain vs B. S. Grewal & Others on 6 November, 1964\",\"datePublished\":\"1964-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-28T17:29:13+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964\"},\"wordCount\":2202,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964\",\"name\":\"Kapur Chand Jain vs B. S. Grewal & Others on 6 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1964-11-05T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-05-28T17:29:13+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Kapur Chand Jain vs B. S. Grewal & Others on 6 November, 1964\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Kapur Chand Jain vs B. S. Grewal & Others on 6 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Kapur Chand Jain vs B. S. Grewal & Others on 6 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1964-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-05-28T17:29:13+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Kapur Chand Jain vs B. S. Grewal & Others on 6 November, 1964","datePublished":"1964-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-28T17:29:13+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964"},"wordCount":2202,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964","name":"Kapur Chand Jain vs B. S. Grewal & Others on 6 November, 1964 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1964-11-05T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-05-28T17:29:13+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/kapur-chand-jain-vs-b-s-grewal-others-on-6-november-1964#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Kapur Chand Jain vs B. S. Grewal & Others on 6 November, 1964"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19897","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=19897"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/19897\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=19897"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=19897"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=19897"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}