TARO BAI AND ANOTHER Vs. KEHAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Suit filed by the plaintiff was decreed by the trial vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2010. Appeal preferred against the said decree failed and was accordingly dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 28.07.2012. That is how, defendants are before this court in this regular second appeal. Parties to the lis, hereinafter, would be referred to by their original positions in the suit.

(2.) In short, in a suit filed by the plaintiff, he prayed for possession of a land measuring 8 kanals, comprised in rect. No.24, killa No.15/1(4-0), 16/2(4-0), khewat No.2,khatauni No.28, 29 as per jamabandi for the year 2004-2005, situated within the revenue estate of village Chak Totian Wali, Tehsil Jalalabad. It was pleaded that plaintiff (Kehar Singh) was the owner of the suit land measuring 8 kanals. And previously Mehtab Singh son of Sardara Singh, father of defendant No.1 and father-in-law of defendant No.2, was in cultivating possession of the said land as a tenant gair marusi @ 1/3rd share of produce. Mehtab Singh was married to Veero Bai and has four daughters, namely, Jeeto Bai, Sabban Bai, Taro Bai and Piaro Bai. Veero Bai, wife of Mehtab Singh, died during his life time and Mehtab Singh expired on 12.01.2005. In view of the provisions of Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, defendant No.1 being daughter cannot inherit tenancy rights. Thus, the land had to revert back to the landowner. Therefore, in the absence of any heir of occupancy tenancy, possession of defendants would be adverse and unauthorized, after the death of Mehtab Singh.

(3.) In defence, it was pleaded that Mehtab Singh was cultivating the suit land as tenant gair marusi but during his life time, defendant No.1 being his daughter and defendant No.2 being his son-in-law also used to cultivate the suit land as tenants gair marusi @ 1/3rd share of batai under the plaintiff. Since plaintiff never raised any objection at any time, defendants have been in continuous cultivating possession of the suit land. And were admitted to be the tenants by the plaintiff.