KARMI Vs. BACHNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The land in dispute was the occupancy holding of Hari Singh, upon whose death it devolved by succession upon his widow Gango. During the lifetime of Gango, the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act (Punjab Act No. 8) of 1953, was enacted and under section 3 of that Act Gango became owner of the land subject to payment of compensation to the landlord for the loss of his rights, title and interest in the land under the Act. Gango has died. The contest is now between the daughters of Hari Singh, who are plaintiffs, and the collaterals of Hari Singh, who are defendants, in the suit. On the death of Gango, mutation of the land was attested in the name of the defendants.

(2.) The trial Court found that, though the occupancy rights in the land in dispute of Hari Singh were ancestral qua him and his collaterals, the defendants, but as Gango acquired rights of ownership in the land, the land ceased to be ancestral qua the collaterals of Hari Singh, the defendants, on account of such acquisition. Upon this consideration, the learned trial Judge decreed the suit of the plaintiffs as in the case of acquired property daughters are preferred to collaterals under custom. On appeal, the learned Additional District Judge of Jullundur has reversed the decree of the trial Court on the ground that the acquisition of the rights of ownership in the land by Gango was an accretion to the estate of her deceased husband Hari Singh, which estate was, when occupancy tenancy, ancestral qua the defendants, and remains so even after the acquisition of ownership rights in it by the widow of the deceased last holder. This second appeal is by the plaintiffs against the appellate decree of the Additional District Judge of Jullundur.

(3.) I have absolutely no manner of doubt that the first appellate Court has gone wrong entirely in this case. Section 3 of the Act says -