{"id":27088,"date":"1983-04-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1983-04-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983"},"modified":"2015-08-23T23:31:22","modified_gmt":"2015-08-23T18:01:22","slug":"azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983","title":{"rendered":"Azad Singh & Others vs Barkat Ullah Khan & Others on 26 April, 1983"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Azad Singh & Others vs Barkat Ullah Khan & Others on 26 April, 1983<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 1139, \t\t 1983 SCR (2) 927<\/div>\n
Author: D Desai<\/div>\n
Bench: Desai, D.A.<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nAZAD SINGH & OTHERS\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nBARKAT ULLAH KHAN & OTHERS\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT26\/04\/1983\n\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nBENCH:\nDESAI, D.A.\nREDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)\n\nCITATION:\n 1983 AIR 1139\t\t  1983 SCR  (2) 927\n 1983 SCC  (3) 111\t  1983 SCALE  (1)469\n CITATOR INFO :\n D\t    1988 SC 587\t (14)\n\n\nACT:\n     U.P. Zamindari  Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950-s.\n12(1)-Interpretation of-Hereditary  tenant-Thekedar under  a\nTheka for personal cultivation necessary.\n     U.P.  Land\t Reforms  (Supplementary)  Act,\t 1952-S.  3-\nInterpretation of-Adhivasi-Cultivatory\tpossession  must  be\nlawful.\n     Words and Phrases-Cultivatory possession.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n     The plaintiffs, who were Thekedars, filed two suits for\npossession of  land Leased  out\t by  the  Zamindars  to\t the\ndefendants-lessees on  the ground  that since  the Thekedars\nhad become  hereditary tenants\tunder  s.  12  of  the\tU.P.\nZamindari Abolition  and Land Reforms Act, 1 950 and were in\npossession of  that land  on  1st  day\tof  May,  1950,\t the\nZamindars had no right to grant lease and the lessees had no\nright to  enter and  remain in possession of that land after\nthat date. The lessees pleaded that they were in cultivatory\npossession of  the land\t during the year 1359 Fasli and were\nentitled to  all the rights of adhivasis under the U.P. Land\nReforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952. The trial court dismissed\nthe suits  observing that  the Thekedars had acquired rights\nof hereditary  tenants but  the lessees\t were in cultivatory\npossession in  1359 Fasli  who had  therefore  acquired\t the\nright of  adhivasi. The\t first appellate court dismissed the\nappeals. The  High  Court  in  second  appeal  reversed\t the\ndecision of  the trial\tcourt and  the first appellate court\nand decreed  the suits.\t On appeal,  it was  contended\tthat\nsince there  was no  authority given  to the  Thekedars\t for\npersonal cultivation of the lands comprised in the Theka the\nThekedars did  not acquire  the right  of hereditary tenants\nunder s. 12 of the 1950 Act.\n     Dismissing the appeals,\n^\n     HELD: Section  12 of  the 1950 Act provides that if any\nland was  given to  a person for personal cultivation by him\non the\t1st day\t of May\t 1950, as  a Thekedar  thereof, then\nbecause of  the non-obstante clause occurring in sub-section\n(I) of\tsection 12  the Thekedar  would be  deemed to  be  a\nhereditary tenant  of the  land entitled to hold the land as\nsuch and  liable to  pay rent  at hereditary  rates. If such\nhereditary tenant  has lost  possession he  is\tentitled  to\nregain his  possession. If,  however, the  land was  in\t the\npersonal cultivation  of  the  Thekedar\t who  was  appointed\nmerely to  collect rent\t from other tenants and incidentally\nallowed to  cultivate the  Sir, or  Khudkasht  land  of\t the\nlessor then  he will  be a  mere asami\tin  accordance\twith\nsection 13\n928\nof the\tAct. Before  a Thekedar\t can claim  the status\tof a\nhereditary tenant,  A he must not only be a Thekedar but the\nTheka must  be specifically granted for personal cultivation\nof the land included in the Theka by the Thekedar.\n\t\t\t\t\t    [931 H, 932 A-C]\n     Babu Noorul  Hasan Khan  v. Ram  Prasad Singh  and\t Ors<\/a>\n[1980] I SCR 977 and Raghunandan Singh and Ors v. Brij Mohan\nSingh and Ors.,<\/a> [1980] 2 SCR 1063, referred to.\n     In the  instant case  the Theka was created exclusively\nfor personal  cultivation of  the land involved in the Theka\nbe the\tThekedars and  not as a consideration for some other\nduties to  be performed\t by the\t Thekedars to the Zamindars.\nThe Thekedars  were in\tpossession  of\tthe  land  and\twere\npersonally cultivating the land on the 1st day of May, 1950.\nThe Thekedars  acquired the  status  of\t hereditary  tenants\nunder section 12 of the 1950 Act. [933 C-E]\n     Section 3\tof the 1952 Act provides that any person who\nhas not\t become a  bhumidar, sirdar, adhivas. Or asami under\nthe 1950  Act if he is in cultivatory possession of any land\nduring the year 1359 Fasli and if the bhumidar or sirdar was\nnot such  a person,  such person  in cultivatory  possession\nwould acquire  the status  of an  adhivasi.  To\t obtain\t the\nbenefit\t of   section  3   the\tperson\tclaiming  to  be  in\ncultivatory possession\tmust show that his or her possession\nwas lawful. [933 F-G, 934 F]\n     Sonawati and  Ors. v.  Sri Ram  and Anr.,<\/a>\t[1968] I SCR\n617, referred to.\n     In the  instant case  since the  Thekedars had acquired\nthe status  of hereditary  tenants as  Theka was  up to\t and\ninclusive of the year 1359 Fasli, the Zamindars had no right\nto  induct   lessees  in   possession  after  depriving\t the\nThekedars of  their possession\tand therefore  possession of\nthe lessees  in 1359  Fasli was\t not lawful.  Therefore\t the\nlessees did  not acquire  the right of adhivasi. [933 H, 935\nA]\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 282-283
\nof 1969.\n<\/p>\n
     Appeals by\t special leave\tfrom the  Judgment and order
\ndated the  15th October, 1968 of the Allahabad High Court in
\nSecond Civil Appeals Nos. 978\/58 and 11 of 1959.\n<\/p>\n
     S. Rangarajan,  Mrs. S.  Bagga and\t Uma  Jain  for\t the
\nAppellants.\n<\/p>\n
     K.L. Hathi, P.C. Kupur, R.S. Mehta, O.P. Verma and S.N.
\nSingh for the Respondents.\n<\/p>\n
     The Judgment of the Court Was delivered by
\n     DESAI, J. These two appeals by special leave arise from
\ntwo Suits filed by Barkatullah and Sahfiullah for possession
\nof land more
\n929<\/span>
\nparticularly set  out at  the foot of the plaint against the
\nZamindars and  Prem Kumari and Noor Mohammad. Briefly stated
\nthe plaintiffs’\t A case was that they were Thekadars and the
\nTheka was  taken for  personally cultivating  the  land\t and
\ntherefore under\t sec. 12 of the U P. Zamindari Abolition and
\nLand Reforms  Act, 1950\t (‘1950 Act’  for short),  they have
\nbecome hereditary  tenants and\tthey were  in possession  of
\nland on\t Ist April  1960. It  was alleged that the Zamindars
\nhad no\tright to  lease the land after the plaintiffs became
\nhereditary tenants  yet Prem  Kumari and  Noor Mohammad took
\nland on\t lease from  Zamindars and  entered possession after
\n1.4 1950.  It was alleged that the lessees from the Zamindar
\nhad no\tright to  remain in possession as against hereditary
\ntenants.  On   this  short   ground  the  plaintiffs  sought
\npossession of the land.\n<\/p>\n
     The defendants  were  the\tZamindars  and\ttwo  lessees
\ncontested the  suit. The  averments made  in para  4 of\t the
\nplaint were  not controverted specifically and it was merely
\nstated that  they are  subject to additional pleas. The only
\nplea put  forward on behalf of the lessees worth-noticing is
\nthat the  lessees were\tin cultivatory possession during the
\nyear 1359-F and being not a person who has become a bhumidar
\nsirdar, Adhivasi  or Asami  is entitled to all the rights of
\nAdhivasis under\t U.P. Land Reforms (Supplementary) Act, 1952
\n(‘1952 Act’ for short)
\n     The trial\tcourt dismissed\t the suit observing that the
\nplaintiffs were\t Thekadars of  the land and under sec. 12 of
\nthe 1950  Act have acquired rights of hereditary tenants but
\nthe lessees  were in  cultivatory possession  in 1359-F\t and
\ntherefore have acquired the right of adhivasi. Thekanama was
\nheld to\t be defective  on the  question of Theka being given
\nexclusively for\t personal cultivation.\tThe  two  plaintiffs
\npreferred two  separate appeals\t and both  the appeals\twere
\ndisposed of  by the  First  Additional\tCivil  and  Sessions
\nJudge, Gonda  as per  his judgment  dated September 1, 1958.
\nBroadly stated,\t the learned  Judge agreed with the findings
\nof the\ttrial court  and dismissed the appeals. The original
\nplaintiffs carried  the\t matter\t in  .\tsecond\tappeal.\t Two
\nseparate appeals  were preferred,  by the  time the  appeals
\ncame up\t for hearing,  a statement  was made  that both\t the
\nplaintiffs have\t compromised the  dispute inter\t Se and that
\nthe suit  be treated  as one  and if  the appeal  is  to  be
\nallowed, possession is to be given jointly to two appellants
\nas against the respondents H
\n     The learned  Judge disposed  of  both  the\t appeals  by
\ncommon judgment\t reversing the\tdecision of  the trial court
\nand the first
\n930<\/span>
\nappellate court holding that the plaintiffs had acquired the
\nstatus of  A hereditary\t tenants and  were in  possession on
\n1.5.1950 and,  therefore, the  Zamindars  had  no  right  to
\ndispossess the\tplaintiffs and\tinduct the  two\t lessees  in
\npossession. It\twas further  held that\tas the\tlessees came
\ninto possession\t under Zamindars  who had  no right to grant
\nthe lease  possession of  the lessees  being  thus  unlawful
\nagainst the  plaintiffs, they  could not  have acquired\t the
\nAdivasis rights.  Accordingly, the  suit was  decreed and  a
\ndecree\tfor   possession  was\tgranted\t in  favour  of\t the
\nplaintiffs. Hence these two appeals by special leave
\n     Both the original lessees have died and their heirs and
\nlegal representative are prosecuting these appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     Mr. Rangarajan,  learned  counsel\tfor  the  appellants
\nurged that  in view  of the  finding of the trial court that
\nthere was  no specific\tauthority given to the Thekadars for
\npersonal cultivation  of the  lands comprised  in the Theka,
\nthe  Thekadars-plaintiffs  did\tnot  acquire  the  right  of
\nhereditary tenants  under sec  12 of  the 1950 Act. This was
\nthe principal contention urged in these two appeals.\n<\/p>\n
     1950 Act  was a measure of agrarian reform enacted with
\na  view\t  to  abolishing   the\tZamindari   system  and\t for
\nacquisition of\tintermediaries’ rights.\t Section 4  provided
\nfor  vesting   of  estates   in\t the  State  free  from\t all
\nencumbrances with  effect from\tthe date  to be specified by
\nthe State  Government in a notification. Sec. 6, inter alia,
\nprovided the consequences of the vesting of an estate in the
\nState, one such being that all rights, title and interest of
\nall the\t intermediaries shall  cease and  be vested  in\t the
\nState. Sec.  1 2  provides that\t the Thekadars would acquire
\nthe rights  of hereditary  tenants in certain circumstances.
\nIt reads as under;\n<\/p>\n
\t  “(1) Where any land was in personal cultivation of
\n     a person  on the  1st day\tof May,\t 1950 as  a Thekadar
\n     thereof and  the theka  was made  with a  view  to\t the
\n     cultivation of  the land  by such\tthekedar personally,
\n     then notwithstanding  anything in\tany law, document or
\n     order of  court, he  shall be deemed to be a hereditary
\n     tenant thereof  entitled to  hold, and when he has been
\n     ejected from  the land  after the\tsaid date, to regain
\n     possession as a hereditary tenant thereof liable to pay
\n     rent at hereditary rates.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
931<\/span><\/p>\n
\t  (2) The  fact that the land comprised in the theka
\n     has been  in the  personal cultivation  of the thekedar
\n     since   the    commencement   of\tthe   theka   shall,
\n     notwithstanding anything contained in section 91 and 92
\n     of the  Indian Evidence  Act,  1872  (I  of  1872),  be
\n     receivable in  evidence for  showing that the theka was
\n     of the nature referred to in sub-section (1)”.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
1952 Act enacted certain supplementary provisions in respect
\nof the\t1950 Act.  Sec. 3  of 1952  Act provided  that every
\nperson who  was in cultivatory possession of any land during
\nthe year 1359-Fasli but is not a person who as a consequence
\nof vesting under s. 4 of the 1950 Act has become a bhumidar,
\nsirdar, adhivasi  or asami under s. 18 to 21 of the said Act
\nshall be  and is hereby declared to be, with effect from the
\nappointed date\t(b) if the bhumidar or sirdar was not such a
\nperson, an adhivasi, and shall be entitled to all the rights
\nand be subjected to all the liabilities conferred or imposed
\nupon an asami or an adhivasi. There is an explanation to the
\nsection which is not material. Original lessees claimed that
\nthey have acquired the status of Adhivasi under s. 3 of 1952
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     It is  not in dispute that the original plaintiffs were
\nThekedars. It  was however  contended that  unless the Theka
\nwas  exclusively   far\tpersonal  cultivation  of  the\tland
\ncomprised in  the Theka, the Thekedars would not acquire the
\nstatus\tof  hereditary\ttenants.  Sec.\t12  which  has\tbeen
\nextracted herein before specifically provides that where any
\nland is\t in personal  cultivation of a person on the 1st day
\nof May,\t 1950, as  a Thekedar thereof and the Theka was made
\nwith a\tview to the cultivation of the land by such Thekedar
\npersonally  then   notwithstanding  anything   in  any\tlaw,
\ndocument or  order of  court,  he  shall  be  deemed  to  be
\nhereditary tenant  thereof entitled to hold, and when he has
\nbeen ejected  from the\tland after  the said date, to regain
\npossession as a hereditary tenant thereof liable to pay rent
\nat hereditary rates. This section came in for interpretation
\nin Babu\t Noorul Hasan  Khan v.\tRam Prasad  Singh &  Ors<\/a> (1)
\nwherein it  was held  that a Thekedar of an Estate ceases to
\nhave any  right to  hold or possess as such any land in such
\nEstate with effect from the date of its vesting. But this is
\nsubject to two exceptions; one such being as enacted in 5. l
\n2  which   provides  that  if  such  land  was\tin  personal
\ncultivation of a person on the 1st day of May, 1950, as a
\n932<\/span>
\nthekedar thereof  and if  the theka  was made with a view to
\nthe A  cultivation of land by such thekedar personally, then
\nbecause of the non-obstante clause occurring in sub-sec. (I)
\nof s.  12 of  the Act,\tthe Thekedar would be deemed to be a
\nhereditary tenant  of the land entitled to hold land as such
\nand  liable  to\t pay  rent  at\thereditary  rates.  If\tsuch
\nhereditary tenant  has lost  possession he  is\tentitled  to
\nregain his possession. It was further held that if, however,
\nthe land  was in personal cultivation of the Thekedar merely
\nas a  Thekedar appointed  to collect rent from other tenants
\nand incidentally  allowed to  cultivate the Sir or Khudkasht
\nland of\t the  lessor  then  he\twill  be  a  mere  Asami  in
\naccordance with\t sec. 13(2)  of the Act. This interpretation
\nof sec.\t 12 was\t re-affirmed in\t Raghunandan Singh & Ors. v.
\nBrij Mohan  Singh & Ors<\/a>(1) It would thus appear well-settled
\nthat before  a Thekedar can claim the status of a hereditary
\ntenant, he must not only be a Thekedar but the Theka must be
\nspecifically granted  for personal  cultivation of  the land
\nincluded in the Theka by the Thekedar.\n<\/p>\n
     The question  therefore, is  whether in  this case\t the
\nland included  in  the\tTheka  of  the\toriginal  plaintiffs
\nprovided  for  personal\t cultivation  of  the  land  by\t the
\nThekedar or  personal cultivation  was incidental  to  other
\nrights and obligations such as collection of rent . from the
\nother tenants  ? This  would necessitate  examination of the
\noriginal document  creating Theka.  That was not read to us,
\nbut Mr.\t Rangarajan relied upon the following observation in
\nthe judgment of the learned trial Judge:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “I have read the context (sic) (possibly contract,
\n     of\t the   Thekanama.  There   is  no   authority  given
\n     specifically or  impliedly for  personal cultivation by
\n     the Thekedars of the land comprised in the Theka unless
\n     there was\tsuch  a\t provision.  I\tfear  no  rights  of
\n     hereditary tenancy\t could have  been  acquired  by\t the
\n     plaintiffs.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
It was urged that the learned Judge specifically came to the
\nconclusion that\t the Theka  was not  created exclusively and
\nspecifically for  personal cultivation of the lands involved
\nin the\tTheka. The  learned appellate  Judge found  that the
\nThekedars were in actual possession and personal cultivation
\nof the\tland for a period of 11 years. He further found that
\nthe Theka would be deemed to have been granted for
\n933<\/span>
\npersonal cultivation  and if the plaintiffs (Thekedars) have
\nbeen found  to be in personal cultivation of the suit on 1st
\nMay, 1950  as Thekedars,  they\twould  be  entitled  to\t the
\nbenefit of  sec. 12 of 1950 Act. The learned appellate Judge
\nthen concluded\tthat it\t is satisfactorily  proved that\t the
\nplaintiffs-Thekedars were in possession on 1st May, 1950.
\nHowever the  learned Judge  declined to\t grant relief to the
\nplaintiffs on  the finding  that the  lessees  had  acquired
\nAdhivasis right\t under 1952  Act. It clearly transpires from
\nthe findings of the first appellate court, which is the last
\nfact  finding\tcourt,\tthat  the  Theka  was  for  personal
\ncultivation of\tthe land  involved  in\tthe  Theka  and\t the
\nThekedars were\tpersonally cultivating the land for a period
\nof 11  years. The  High Court  in second appeal noticed that
\nthe Thekedars  were personally cultivating the land. Nothing
\nwas pointed  out to  us to show that Thekedars had any other
\nduty to\t perform such as collecting rent from other tenants.
\nThere is nothing in the record to show that the Theka was as
\na consideration for some other duties to be performed by the
\nThekedars to  the Zamindars.  Therefore, the  conclusion  is
\ninescapable, that  the Theka  was  created  exclusively\t for
\npersonal cultivation  of the  land involved  in the Theka by
\nthe Thekedars.\n<\/p>\n
     If it is clearly established that the Theka was created
\nexclusively for\t personal cultivation  of the  land  by\t the
\nThekedars, the\tratio of  the decision\tof this\t Court would
\nlead to\t the conclusion\t that  the  Thekedars  acquired\t the
\nstatus of  the hereditary tenants under sec. 12 of the 1 950
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
     The only question then remains for the consideration is
\nwhether the original lessees acquired Adhivasis rights under
\nsec. 3\tof the\t1952 Act.  Sec. 3  which has  been extracted
\nherein before  provides that any person who has not become a
\nbhumidar, sirdar,  adhivasi or asami under 1950 Act if he is
\nin cultivatory\tpossession of  any land during the year 1359
\nFasli and  if the  bhumidar or sirdar was not such a person,
\nsuch a\tperson in  cultivatory possession  would acquire the
\nstatus of  an adhivasi. The High Court then examined what is
\nthe significance  of the expression ‘cultivatory possession’
\nin sec. 3. The High Court rightly held that if the Thekedars
\nhad acquired  the status  of hereditary tenants as Theka was
\nup to  and inclusive  of the  year 1359 Fasli, the Zamindars
\nhad no right to induct lessees in possession after depriving
\nthe Thekedars  of their\t possession and therefore possession
\nof the lessees was not
\n934<\/span>
\nlawful against\tthe Thekedars.\tThe High  Court rightly held
\nthat A\tthe lessees  could not\tbe said to be in cultivatory
\npossession of  the land\t on the\t appointed day.\t In reaching
\nthis conclusion,  the High  Court relied  upon a decision of
\nthis Court  in Sonawati & ors. v. Shri Ram Anr.<\/a>(1) The Court
\nheld as under:\n<\/p>\n
\t  “The expression  “cultivatory possession”  is\t not
\n     defined in the Act, but the Explanation clearly implies
\n     that the  claimant must  have a  lawful right  to be in
\n     possession of  the land,  and must\t not belong  to\t the
\n     classes  specified\t in  the  explanation.\t“Cultivatory
\n     possession” to be recognized for the purpose of the Act
\n     must be  lawful and  for the  whole year  1359 Fasli. A
\n     trespasser who  has no  right to  be in  possession  by
\n     merely   entering\t  upon\t the\tland   forcibly\t  or
\n     surreptitiously cannot  be\t said  to  be  a  person  in
\n     “cultivatory possession”  within the meaning of s. 3 of
\n     U.P. Act of 1952. We are of the view that the Allahabad
\n     High Court\t was right  in holding\tin  Ram\t Krishna  v.
\n     Bhagwan Baksh  Singh(2) that a person who through force
\n     inducts himself over and into some land and succeeds in
\n     continuing his  occupation over it cannot be said to be
\n     in cultivatory  possession of that land so as to invest
\n     him with  the rights of an asami or an adhivasi, and we
\n     are unable\t to agree  with the subsequent judgment of a
\n     Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in Nanhoo Mal v.
\n     Muloo  and\t ors.(B)  that\toccupation  by\ta  wrongdoer
\n     without  any   right  to\tthe  land   is\t‘cultivatory
\n     possession’ within\t the meaning of s. 3 of the U.P. Act
\n     31 of 1952″.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
Therefore in  order to\tobtain the benefit of sec. 3 of 1952
\nAct, the  person claiming  to be  in cultivatory  possession
\nmust show  that his  or her  possession was lawful. The High
\nCourt consistent  with certain\tfindings of  the trial Court
\nand the\t first appellate  court held  that possession of the
\nlessees in  1359 Fasli\twas not\t lawful and this necessarily
\nfollows from  the finding  given  by  the  courts  that\t the
\nThekedars were\tin cultivatory\tpossession of  the plots  in
\ndispute on  the appointed day i.e. 1st May, 1950 and thereby
\nbecame entitled to acquire the rights of hereditary tenants.
\nWe are in agreement with the conclusion recorded by the High
\nCourt.\n<\/p>\n
935<\/span><\/p>\n
     It must  therefore follow as a necessary corollary that
\nthe lessees  did not  acquire the  right of adhivasi and the
\nhereditary A  tenants would  be entitled  to  a\t decree\t for
\npossession.  Accordingly,  the\tappeals\t fail  and  must  be
\ndismissed. The appeals are thus dismissed with costs.\n<\/p>\n
H.S.K.\t\t\t\t\t  Appeals dismissed.\n936<\/span>\n\n\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Azad Singh & Others vs Barkat Ullah Khan & Others on 26 April, 1983 Equivalent citations: 1983 AIR 1139, 1983 SCR (2) 927 Author: D Desai Bench: Desai, D.A. PETITIONER: AZAD SINGH & OTHERS Vs. RESPONDENT: BARKAT ULLAH KHAN & OTHERS DATE OF JUDGMENT26\/04\/1983 BENCH: DESAI, D.A. BENCH: DESAI, D.A. REDDY, […]<\/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-27088","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nAzad Singh & Others vs Barkat Ullah Khan & Others on 26 April, 1983 - 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\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Azad Singh & Others vs Barkat Ullah Khan & Others on 26 April, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983\" \/>\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=\"1983-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-08-23T18:01:22+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=\"16 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Azad Singh & Others vs Barkat Ullah Khan & Others on 26 April, 1983\",\"datePublished\":\"1983-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-23T18:01:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983\"},\"wordCount\":2576,\"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\\\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983\",\"name\":\"Azad Singh & Others vs Barkat Ullah Khan & Others on 26 April, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1983-04-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-08-23T18:01:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Azad Singh & Others vs Barkat Ullah Khan & Others on 26 April, 1983\"}]},{\"@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":"Azad Singh & Others vs Barkat Ullah Khan & Others on 26 April, 1983 - 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\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Azad Singh & Others vs Barkat Ullah Khan & Others on 26 April, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1983-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-08-23T18:01:22+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":"16 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Azad Singh & Others vs Barkat Ullah Khan & Others on 26 April, 1983","datePublished":"1983-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-23T18:01:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983"},"wordCount":2576,"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\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983","name":"Azad Singh & Others vs Barkat Ullah Khan & Others on 26 April, 1983 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1983-04-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-08-23T18:01:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/azad-singh-others-vs-barkat-ullah-khan-others-on-26-april-1983#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Azad Singh & Others vs Barkat Ullah Khan & Others on 26 April, 1983"}]},{"@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\/27088","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=27088"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/27088\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=27088"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=27088"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=27088"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}