KALAWATI Vs. CONSOLIDATION OFFICER AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING consolidation proceedings the Petitioner claimed a 1/4th share as against Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 who were her sons. The holding in dispute belonged to the Petitioner's husband, Mithoo Singh, who died in 1954.

(2.) THE Duputy Director has rejected the claim of the Petitioner on the ground that after coming into operation of the ZA and LR Act, no person can become a co -tenureholder by estoppel or acquiescence. Under the law of succession, sons were preferable heirs to a widow. The Petitioner being a widow of Mithoo Singh hence acquired no interest in the two khatas in dispute.

(3.) BUT , in relation to bhumidhari holding the position is different. Under Section 154 a bhumidhari holding is transferable, subject to the restrictions mentioned in subsequent sections. The interest of a bhumidhar being transferable, there was no need for any exception like Section 33 of the Tenancy Act. Creation of a co -tenancy by estoppel or acquiescence was one of the modes in which the law recognised a transfer of a share in the holdings. Thus a person could be engrafted as a co -tenureholder in a bhumidhari holding by either an express transfer or by implication, i.e. by acquiescence, estoppel etc.