{"id":22099,"date":"1962-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1962-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962"},"modified":"2016-08-21T01:58:32","modified_gmt":"2016-08-20T20:28:32","slug":"amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962","title":{"rendered":"Amir Singh And Another vs Ram Singh And Others(And &#8230; on 4 October, 1962"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Amir Singh And Another vs Ram Singh And Others(And &#8230; on 4 October, 1962<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nAMIR SINGH AND ANOTHER\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nRAM SINGH AND OTHERS(And connected appeals)\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n04\/10\/1962\n\nBENCH:\n\n\nACT:\nPre-emption-Amending  legislation  creating  new  right\t and\nproviding decrees not to be passed inconsistent with the new\nlaw-Retrospective operation-Effect on pending  appeal-Punjab\nPre-emption Act, 1913 (Punj. of 1913), as amended by  Punjab\nAct 10 of 1960, ss.15(1) (C) cl. 4, 31.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nThe properties in suit had been sold by A to the  appellants\non  May\t 31;  1956, but the respondents, as  the  owners  of\ncertain agricultural land in the patti claimed that they had\na right of preemption under s. 15 (c) (ii) and (iii) of\t the\nPunjab Preemption Act, 1913.  In the suit instituted by\t the\nrespondents  for  this purpose the appellants  resisted\t the\nclaim on the ground that the vendees from A had\t transferred\nby exchanges some of the items out of the lands purchased by\nthem  and  that\t as  a result  of  the\tsaid  exchanges\t the\nappellants  themselves\thad become entitled to\tpreempt\t the\nsaid  sales  under the same statutory provision.   The\tsuit\nwas,  however, decreed by the trial court and  the  decision\nwas  confirmed by the High Court of Punjab.  The  appellants\nobtained  special leave to appeal to the Supreme  Court\t and\nduring the pendency of\n\t\t\t    885\nthe appeal the Act was amended by Punjab Act 10 of 1960,  by\nwhich,\tinter alia, (1) cls. (ii) and (iii) of s. 15 (c)  of\nthe  original  Act were deleted, (2) cl.4 of  S.  15  (1)(c)\nprovided  that\tthe  right  of\tpreemption  in\trespect\t  of\nagricultural land and village immoveable property shall vest\nin  the\t tenants who held under tenancy of  the\t vendors  or\nanyone of them the land or property sold or a part  thereof,\nand (3) s. 31 provided that no court shall pass a decree  in\na suit for preemption whether instituted before or after the\ncommencement   of  the\tamending  Act  of  1960\t which\t was\ninconsistent  with the provisions of the said Act.  In\tview\nof  the\t new provisions introduced by the amending  act\t the\nrespondents  raised a new contention that they were  tenants\nwho  held  under  tenancy  of the vendor  of  the  lands  in\nquestion  and, as such, they were entitled to the  right  of\npreemption under cl.4 of s.15 (1)(c) of the Act, as amended,\neven if it be held that the right to claim pre-emption under\ncls.  (ii)  and (iii) of s.15 (c) of the  unmended  Act\t was\ntaken  away  retrospectively  by  the  amending\t Act.\t The\nappellants  pleaded  that even assuming that  cl.4  of\ts.15\n(1)(c)\twas  applicable,  the respondents could\t not  get  a\ndecree\ton  the\t bassis\t of the\t new  right  of\t pre-emption\ninasmuch as they had no such right on the date on which\t the\nsuit was filed or when the sales were effected.\nHeld,  that  (1 the provisions of s.31 of  the\tPunjab\tPre-\nemption Act, 1913, as amended by Punjab Act 10 of 1960,\t are\nretrospective in operation and, therefore, the decree passed\nin favour of the respondents by the trial court and affirmed\nby  the High Court under the unmended section could  not  be\nsustained.\nRam Sarup V.Munshi--[1963] 3 S.C.R. 858 followed.\n(2)\t     The retrospective operation of s.31 necessarily\ninvolves effect being given to the substantive provisions of\namended s.15 retrospectively, and hence the rights which the\nrespondents  now claim under the amended provisions must  be\ndeemed to have vested in them at the relevant time, with the\nresult\tthat  they  are entitled, on remand, to\t ask  for  a\ndecree passed on the basis of the said rights,\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeals Nos. 436 to\t 438<br \/>\nof 1961.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeals\t by special leave from the judgment and order  dated<br \/>\nDecember 9, 1959, of the Punjab<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">886<\/span><br \/>\nHigh  Court in Letters Patent Appeals Nos. 407, 408 and\t 409<br \/>\nof 1959.\n<\/p>\n<p>Achhru Ram and B. D. Jain, for the appellants.<br \/>\nGian Singh Vohra, for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n<p>1962.\tOctober 4. The Judgement of the Court was  delivered<br \/>\nby<br \/>\nGAJENDRAGADKAR,\t J.-What is the effect of the  retrospective<br \/>\noperation  of  s. 31 introduced by  the\t Punjab\t Pre-emption<br \/>\n(Amendment) Act, 1960 (X of 1960) in the parent Act of\tPre-<br \/>\nemption (No.  1 of 1913).  That is the short question  which<br \/>\narises\tfor our decision in these three appeals\t which\thave<br \/>\nbeen  ordered to be consolidated for the purpose of  hearing<br \/>\nby  this Court.\t These appeals arise from three\t pre-emption<br \/>\nsuits  instituted by the respondents against the  respective<br \/>\nappellants.   The respondents&#8217; case was that the  properties<br \/>\nin suit had been sold by Aftab Rai on May 31, 1956, for\t Rs.<br \/>\n10,000\/- to the appellants and it is these sales which\tthey<br \/>\nwanted to preempt.  They alleged that they are the owners of<br \/>\nagricultural land in Patti Aulakli and Patti Rode, in  Mauza<br \/>\nMarahar Kalan, and as such, they had the statutory right  to<br \/>\nclaim  pre-emption,  under  s. 15(c) (ii)  and\t(iii).\t The<br \/>\nappellants  resisted  this  claim on  the  ground  that\t the<br \/>\nrespective  vendees  from  Aftab  Rai  had  transferred\t  by<br \/>\nexchanges about 2 kenals out of the lands purchased  by-them<br \/>\nand  as\t a result of the said exchanges the  appellants\t had<br \/>\nthemselves  become entitled to preempt the said sales  under<br \/>\nthe  same  statutory provision.\t Since\tthe  appellants\t had<br \/>\nacquired equal status with the respondents who claimed to be<br \/>\nthe  preemptors,  their\t claim\tfor  pre-emption  cannot  be<br \/>\nsustained.   That, in brief, was the nature of\tthe  contest<br \/>\nbetween the parties.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\">887<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The  trial  Court  held\t that the  exchanges  on  which\t the<br \/>\nappellants relied bad not been proved and so, it gave effect<br \/>\nto  the respondents&#8217; right to preempt under s. 15(c) (ii)  &amp;\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii).\t The  appellants took the matter  before  the  Addl.<br \/>\nDistrict  Judge\t in appeal.  The lower appellate  Court\t was<br \/>\npleased\t to admit additional evidence under 0.41, r. 27,  of<br \/>\nthe  Code of Civil Procedure and held that the exchanges  in<br \/>\nquestion  had in fact been proved and were, in\tlaw,  valid.<br \/>\nIt,  therefore\tcame to the conclusion that  the  appellants<br \/>\nacquired  equal\t status\t with the respondents  and  so,\t the<br \/>\nrespondents&#8217;  claim for pre-emption must fail.\tThat is\t why<br \/>\nthe appeals preferred by the appellants were allowed and the<br \/>\nrespondents&#8217; suits were dismissed.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  dispute  was  then taken up before the  High  Court  of<br \/>\nPanjab\tby the respondents by second appeals.  Mahajan,\t J.,<br \/>\nwho  heard these appeals held that the property acquired  by<br \/>\nexchange  in lieu of the part of the property  purchased  by<br \/>\nthe vendees did not give the appellants a right to  preempt.<br \/>\nHe referred to the fact that exchange of lands was sometimes<br \/>\nrecognised as conferring on the party the right to  preempt,<br \/>\nbut  that was where the land exchanged did not form part  of<br \/>\nthe land sold and preempted.  In the result, the High  Court<br \/>\nheld  that  the plea made by the appellants  was  not  well-<br \/>\nfounded in law and so, the respondents were entitled to pre-<br \/>\nempt.\tAs a result of this finding, the decrees  passed  by<br \/>\nthe lower appellate Court were reversed and the respondents&#8217;<br \/>\nsuits were decreed.  The appellants then moved the  Division<br \/>\nBench  by  Letters Patent appeals, but\tthese  appeals\twere<br \/>\ndismissed.   It\t is against the decrees thus passed  by\t the<br \/>\nDivision Bench in Letters Patent appeals that the appellants<br \/>\nhave come to this Court by special leave.\n<\/p>\n<p>We  have  already noticed that both the appellants  and\t the<br \/>\nrespondents are claiming a right to<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">888<\/span><br \/>\npreempt\t under s. 15(c) (ii) and (iii) of the Parent Act  of<br \/>\n1913.  On February 4, 1960, the amending Act No. 10 of\tJ960<br \/>\nwas  passed. Section 4 of the amending Act  has\t substituted<br \/>\nanew  s.15 of the old s.15 after making substantial  changes<br \/>\nin the provisionsof the earlier section. Clauses (ii) and\n<\/p>\n<p>(iii) of theoriginal s.15(c) have been deleted, with  the<br \/>\nresult\tthat  the  claims for preemption made  both  by\t the<br \/>\nappellants and the respondents have ceased to be  recognised<br \/>\nby  the\t amended provisions.  The  appellants  contend\tthat<br \/>\nsince  the respondents have got a decree for pre-emption  in<br \/>\ntheir  favour on the provisions of the unamended s.15,\tthat<br \/>\ndecree can no longer be sustained because of the  provisions<br \/>\nof  s.31 of the amending Act.  Section 31 provides  that  no<br \/>\nCourt shall pass a decree in a suit for pre-emption  whether<br \/>\ninstituted  before or after the commencement of\t the  Punjab<br \/>\nPre-emption    (Amendment)   Act,   1959(1960)\t which\t  is<br \/>\ninconsistent  with  the\t provisions of\tthe  said  Act.\t  In<br \/>\nsupport\t of  his argument that s.31 being  retrospective  in<br \/>\noperation the respondents&#8217; title to claim pre-emption can no<br \/>\nlonger\tbe entertained.\t Mr. Achhru Ram for  the  appellants<br \/>\nhas invited our attention to a recent decision of this Court<br \/>\nin the case of <a href=\"\/doc\/823328\/\">Ram Sarup v. Munshi<\/a> (1) pronounced on  August<br \/>\n30,  1962.   In that case, Ayyangar, J., who spoke  for\t the<br \/>\nConstitution   Bench  considered  the  question\t about\t the<br \/>\nretrospective operation\t of s. 31 and has  observed that the<br \/>\nsaid provision is retrospective and that the language\tused<br \/>\nin  the\t said section is &#8220;plain the comprehensive so  as  to<br \/>\nrequire an appellate Court to give effect to the substantive<br \/>\nprovisions of the amending Act whether the appeal before  it<br \/>\nis one against a decree granting preemption or one  refusing<br \/>\nthat relief,&#8221; It was no doubt urged before the Court in that<br \/>\ncase that the words used in s. 31 did<br \/>\n(1) [1963] 3 S.C.R. 858.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\"> 889<\/span><\/p>\n<p>not  justify  the application of the amended  provisions  to<br \/>\nproceedings  pending before the appellate Court;  them\tsaid<br \/>\nwords showed that the said provisions could be invoked\tonly<br \/>\nin  cases which were pending before the trial  Court.\tThis<br \/>\ncontention  was\t rejected  and so, it must be  taken  to  be<br \/>\nsettled\t that the provisions of s. 31 are retrospective\t and<br \/>\ncan  be\t relied\t upon by the  appellants  in  their  present<br \/>\nappeals before this Court.\n<\/p>\n<p>This  position would undoubtedly have helped the  appellants<br \/>\nbut  for another complication which has been  introduced  by<br \/>\nthe relevant provisions of the amended s. 15 enacted by\t the<br \/>\namending  Act.\t We have already noticed that  some  persons<br \/>\nwhose  right to preempt was recognised by the  corresponding<br \/>\nprovisions  of\tthe parent Act, have been  omitted  by\tthe<br \/>\namended\t section.  The amended section has  also  introduced<br \/>\nanother\t class\tof persons on whom the right to\t claim\tpre-<br \/>\nemption\t has been conferred.  These persons are the  tenants<br \/>\nwho  hold under tenancy of the vendors the land or  property<br \/>\nsold  or  a part thereof.  This class of  tenants  has\tbeen<br \/>\nintroduced  in\tclauses (a), (b) and (c) of amended  s.\t 15.<br \/>\nClause four of s. 15(1) (c) provides that the right of\tpre-<br \/>\nemption\t  in  respect  of  agricultural\t land  and   village<br \/>\nimmovable property shall vest in the tenants who hold  under<br \/>\ntenancy\t of  the  vendors or any one of\t them  the  land  or<br \/>\nproperty  sold\tor a part thereof.  Similar  provisions\t are<br \/>\nmade  in  clauses (a) &amp;- (b) of the said section.   For\t the<br \/>\nrespondents Mr. Vohra contends that they are the tenants who<br \/>\nhold  under tenancy of the vendor the lands in question\t and<br \/>\nas  such, they are now clothed with the right to claim\tpre-<br \/>\nemption.   In other words, the respondents argument is\tthat<br \/>\nthough\tthe  right  to preempt which  they  possessed  under<br \/>\nclauses\t (ii)  and  (iii) of the unmended s.  15(c)  of\t the<br \/>\nparent\tAct  have  been taken ,way  retrospectively  by\t the<br \/>\namending Act, they have been clothed with the same right  by<br \/>\nvirtue of<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">890<\/span><br \/>\nthe  fact  that\t they fall under the fourth  clause  of\t the<br \/>\namended s, 15 (1) (c) and the conferment of this right\tlike<br \/>\nthe destruction of their right under the deleted  provisions<br \/>\nof the unamended section must operate retrospectively.\t He,<br \/>\ntherefore,  suggests that the respondents ought to be  given<br \/>\nan  opportunity to prove their case under the fourth  clause<br \/>\nof s. 15(c) as amended.\t In this connection, he has referred<br \/>\nus to the fact that this plea has been specifically taken by<br \/>\nthe  respondents in their statement of the case before\tthis<br \/>\nCourt.\t It  is\t on this plea that the\tquestion  about\t the<br \/>\neffect of the retrospective operation of s. 31 arises.<br \/>\nMr.  Achhru Ram contends that though s. 31 is  retrospective<br \/>\nand in that sense the rights to preempt which vested in\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  at\t the time when they instituted\tthe  present<br \/>\nsuits  have  been retrospectively taken away from  them,  it<br \/>\ncannot\tbe  said  that the right to  preempt  to  which\t the<br \/>\nrespondents  lay  claim\t in the\t present  appeals  has\tbeen<br \/>\nretrospectively\t created.   His\t argument  is  that  by\t the<br \/>\namending  Act,\tthe Legislature has no doubt  provided\tthat<br \/>\ncertain\t classes  of persons who were  entitled\t to  preempt<br \/>\nunder  the  old Act should not be given that right  and\t the<br \/>\nextinction of the said right should operate retrospectively,<br \/>\nbut that cannot be said to be the policy of the\t legislature<br \/>\nin  regard  to the rights which have been  created  for\t the<br \/>\nfirst time by the amending Act.\n<\/p>\n<p>The  argument  thus presented may prima facie appear  to  be<br \/>\nattractive; but a close examination of the words used in s.<br \/>\n31  shows  that\t it is not well\t founded.   Section  31,  in<br \/>\nsubstance, requires the appellate Court to pass a decree  in<br \/>\na  preemption  matter  which is not  inconsistent  with\t the<br \/>\nprovisions of the amending Act.\t In the present appeals,  if<br \/>\nwe were to uphold the respondents&#8217; right to claim preemption<br \/>\non the strength of the provisions of s. 15(c)<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">\t\t\t    891<\/span><br \/>\nas  they  stood\t prior\tto  the\t amendment,  that  would  be<br \/>\ninconsistent  with the provisions of the amending  Act,\t and<br \/>\nso,  the  change made by the amending Act has  to  be  given<br \/>\neffect to and the right which once vested in the respondents<br \/>\nmust be deemed to have been retrospectively taken away\tfrom<br \/>\nthem.  On this point there is no dispute.  Would it make any<br \/>\ndifference  in the legal position when we are  dealing\twith<br \/>\nrights which are created for the first time by the  amending<br \/>\nAct  on the date when this Court will pass a decree  in\t the<br \/>\npresent\t appeals?   If the rights created in favour  of\t the<br \/>\ntenants\t are not recognised and a decree is passed  ignoring<br \/>\nthe said rights, that decree would be inconsistent with\t the<br \/>\nrelevant  provisions  of  the amending Act, and\t s.  31\t has<br \/>\nclearly enjoined that no Court shall pass a decree which  is<br \/>\ninconsistent  with the provisions of the amending Act.\t The<br \/>\nposition, therefore, appears to be clear that when a  decree<br \/>\nis  passed  in\ta  preemption  matter  pending\tbefore\t the<br \/>\nappellate  Court,  that Court must refuse to  recognise\t the<br \/>\nright  to preempt which was recognised by the unamended\t Act<br \/>\nbut has been dropped by the amending Act just as much as  it<br \/>\nmust  recognise\t rights\t which were not\t recognised  by\t the<br \/>\nunamended  Act\tbut have been created by the  amending\tAct.<br \/>\nThe  retrospective  operation of s.31  necessarily  involves<br \/>\neffect\tbeing given to the substantive provisions of  s.  15<br \/>\nretrospectively\t  and  that  will  apply  as  much  to\t the<br \/>\nextinction of the old rights as to the creation of new ones.<br \/>\nThe retrospective operation of s. 15 which is  consequential<br \/>\non  the retrospective operation of s.31 is not\taffected  by<br \/>\nthe  fact that the right of preemption prescribed by  s.  15<br \/>\nif;  referred to as a right which shall vest in the  persons<br \/>\nspecified in subsections (a), (b) and (c) of s. 15(1).<br \/>\nIt  is, however, urged that the law of\tpreemption  requires<br \/>\nthat the preemptor must possess the right to preempt at\t the<br \/>\ndate of the sale, at the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\">892<\/span><br \/>\ndate  of  the  suit and at the date  of\t the  decree.\tThis<br \/>\nposition cannot be disputed.  But when it is suggested\tthat<br \/>\nthe  respondents cannot claim that they had the\t right\twhen<br \/>\nthey  brought  the  present  suit or  when  the\t sales\twere<br \/>\neffected,  the\targument  ignores the  true  effect  of\t the<br \/>\nretrospective  operation  of  s.  31  and  s.  15.   If\t the<br \/>\ninevitable  consequence\t of the retrospective  operation  of<br \/>\ns.31  is  to make the substantive provisions of s.  15\talso<br \/>\nretrospective, it follows that by fiction introduced by\t the<br \/>\nretrospective  operation, the rights which  the\t respondents<br \/>\nclaim  under the amended provisions of s. 15 must be  deemed<br \/>\nto  have  vested  in  them at the  relevant  time.   If\t the<br \/>\nrelevant   provisions\tare  made   retrospective   by\t the<br \/>\nlegislature, the retrospective operation must be given\tfull<br \/>\neffect\tto,  and that meets the argument that the  right  to<br \/>\npreempt\t did not exist in the respondents at the  time\twhen<br \/>\nthe sale transactions in question took place.  Therefore, we<br \/>\nare  satisfied\tthat the respondents are entitled  to  claim<br \/>\nthat they should be given an opportunity to prove their case<br \/>\nthat  as tenants of the lands in suit they have a  right  to<br \/>\nclaim preemption.  Incidentally, when the respondents  filed<br \/>\nthe  present  suits, they had a right to preempt  under\t the<br \/>\nrelevant  provisions of the Act as they stood at that  time;<br \/>\nby  the\t amendment,  that right has  been  taken  away,\t but<br \/>\ninstead\t they claim another right by virtue of their  status<br \/>\nas  tenants  of\t the  lands,  and  this\t right\tis,  by\t the<br \/>\nretrospective  operation  of s. 31, available to  them.\t  We<br \/>\nmust  accordingly set aside the decrees passed by  the\tHigh<br \/>\nCourt  and send the matters back to the trial Court  with  a<br \/>\ndirection   that   it  should  allow  the   respondents\t  an<br \/>\nopportunity  to\t amend their claims by putting\tforth  their<br \/>\nright  to  ask for preemption as tenants under\tthe  amended<br \/>\nprovision of 8. 15.  After the amendments are thus made, the<br \/>\nappellants should be given an opportunity<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\"> 893<\/span><br \/>\nto file their written statements and then appropriate issues<br \/>\nshould be framed and the suits tried and disposed of in\t the<br \/>\nlight  of  the findings on those issues in  accordance\twith<br \/>\nlaw.\tUnder  the  unusual  circumstances  in\t which\t the<br \/>\nlitigation  has\t thus secured a further lease  of  life,  we<br \/>\ndirect that the costs incurred so far should be borne by the<br \/>\nparties.\n<\/p>\n<p>Appeal allowed.\t Cases remitted<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Amir Singh And Another vs Ram Singh And Others(And &#8230; on 4 October, 1962 PETITIONER: AMIR SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. RESPONDENT: RAM SINGH AND OTHERS(And connected appeals) DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04\/10\/1962 BENCH: ACT: Pre-emption-Amending legislation creating new right and providing decrees not to be passed inconsistent with the new law-Retrospective operation-Effect [&hellip;]<\/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-22099","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.6 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Amir Singh And Another vs Ram Singh And Others(And ... on 4 October, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Amir Singh And Another vs Ram Singh And Others(And ... on 4 October, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1962-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-08-20T20:28:32+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=\"14 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Amir Singh And Another vs Ram Singh And Others(And &#8230; on 4 October, 1962\",\"datePublished\":\"1962-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-20T20:28:32+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962\"},\"wordCount\":2323,\"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\\\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962\",\"name\":\"Amir Singh And Another vs Ram Singh And Others(And ... on 4 October, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1962-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-08-20T20:28:32+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Amir Singh And Another vs Ram Singh And Others(And &#8230; on 4 October, 1962\"}]},{\"@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":"Amir Singh And Another vs Ram Singh And Others(And ... on 4 October, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; 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\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Amir Singh And Another vs Ram Singh And Others(And ... on 4 October, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1962-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-08-20T20:28:32+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":"14 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Amir Singh And Another vs Ram Singh And Others(And &#8230; on 4 October, 1962","datePublished":"1962-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-20T20:28:32+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962"},"wordCount":2323,"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\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962","name":"Amir Singh And Another vs Ram Singh And Others(And ... on 4 October, 1962 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1962-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-08-20T20:28:32+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/amir-singh-and-another-vs-ram-singh-and-othersand-on-4-october-1962#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Amir Singh And Another vs Ram Singh And Others(And &#8230; on 4 October, 1962"}]},{"@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\/22099","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=22099"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/22099\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=22099"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=22099"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=22099"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}