CHUNI LAL Vs. NARAIN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this second appeal are as under. One Mst. Rakhi, widow of Narain Singh tarkhan was the last occupancy tenant of the land in dispute. She died on 1st May, 1943 and the collaterals of Narain Singh got mutation sanction in their favour on 13th March, 1944. Since then they have been recorded as occupancy tenants of the land in question. On 6th May, 1955 the landlords brought the present suit alleging that the defendants were not successors-in-interest of Mst. Rakhi and were not entitled to succeed to the occupancy rights under section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. They claimed possession on the basis that Mst. Rakhi had left no heir and the occupancy rights had therefore terminated. The suit was contested by the collaterals of Narain Singh, who averred that they were entitled to succeed to the occupancy rights, and that the mutation had been correctly entered in their favour. Only three issues as under were framed by the trial Court :-

(2.) It was conceded before the learned trial Court that the defendants were not entitled to succeed to the occupancy rights of Mst. Rakhi either under section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act or under the general law of landlord and tenant. The trial Court therefore recorded a finding against the defendants on issue No. 1. The trial Court also found that the plaintiffs were landlords qua the property in suit. The suit was, however, dismissed by the trial Court on the ground that by virtue of section 3 of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1953 (Act No. 8 of 1953) the defendants had become proprietors of the land as the proprietary rights had vested in all the occupancy tenants on the enforcement of the said Act. The trial Court was of the view that the defendants stood recorded in the revenue records as occupancy tenants on the relevant date i.e., the date of the enforcement of Punjab Act No. 8 of 1953 and were therefore entitled to be treated as occupancy tenants and consequently became proprietors of the land, irrespective of the fact that they had been wrongly recorded as occupancy tenants and had actually no right to be so recorded. The plaintiffs aggrieved against the decision went up in appeal to the Senior Subordinate Judge, Gurdaspur, who reversed the decree of the trial Court and decreed the plaintiffs' suit for possession of the land. The learned Senior Subordinate Judge found that the defendants were not entitled to be treated as occupancy tenants and that proprietary rights could not be deemed to legally vest in them. He interpreted the definition of "occupancy tenant" as meaning a tenant who is properly or validly recorded as such and not merely one who is somehow recorded as an occupancy tenant in spite of the fact that he has no right to be so recorded. The defendants have come up in second appeal to this Court.

(3.) Mr. Shamair Chand, learned counsel for the respondents, point out that Inder Singh respondent No. 5 died on 22nd September, 1957 and Mangal Singh respondent No. 10 died on 30th September, 1957 and that the legal representatives of none of them have so far been brought on the record. He contends that the appeal has abated and as these two are landlords along with others, the appeal must be treated to have totally abated as all the landlords put together make one landlord Mr. F.C. Mital appearing for the appellants does not contest the factum or the dates of the deaths of Inder Singh and Mangal Singh and he concedes that the appeal must be treated as totally abated. In the view of the matter it is not very necessary to give a finding on the merits of the case, but as the point involved is an important one and was argued at great length before me. I think I should record my finding on the merits also.