SHAM KARTIK SINGH vs MATHURA

The Supreme Court held that under Section 19 of the U.P. Tenancy (Amendment) Act, 1947, the requirement for sir holders to furnish particulars before the first day fixed for recording evidence is procedural and does not alter the substantive law regarding the status of land as sir. The Court found that the appellants had sufficiently complied with the amended provisions, and thus the Board of Revenue's remand for retrial was unjustified. The appeals were allowed, affirming the trial court's decree in favor of the appellants.