RAJA PARTAB SINGH Vs. MANPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of a suit for possession of a certain cultivatory holding. The plaintiffs came to court on the allegations that one Nanhe Singh, who owned a large area of occupancy holding and fixed rate holding, died about 1868, that after him his widow Musammat Nankai entered into possession of the occupancy holding as a life-tenant with limited rights only, that she made a gift of the said property to Manpal Singh, defendant, and his, wife, in the year 1893, that she being only a life-tenant had no right to make the gift, that the gift was, therefore, invalid, that she died in the year 1915 and that thereupon they, the plaintiffs, now sued as her next; reversioners for possession which was postponed till her death. The original tenant Nanhe Singh having died before the Tenancy Act of 1873 was passed, the question is, was there a succession to his holding at the time of his death and, if so, to whom? We have not been able to find any provision of law regulating the devolution of succession to an occupancy tenancy at that time. The right of an occupancy tenant was first created by Act X of 1859. Section 8 of that Act runs as follows: "Every ryot, who has cultivated or held land for a period of twelve years, has a right of occupancy in the land so cultivated or held by him, whether it be held under pottah or not, so long as he pays the rent payable on account of the same; but this rule does not apply to khomar neejjote, or seer land belonging to the proprietor of the estate or tenure and let by him on lease for a term or year by year, nor (as respects the actual cultivator) to lands sub-let for a term or year by year by a ryot having a right of occupancy. The holding of the father, or other person from whom a ryot inherits, shall be deemed to be the holding of the ryot within the meaning of this section."

(2.) In the case of Ajoodhya Pershad V/s. Mussamut Imam Bandi Begum (1867) 7 W.R. C.R. 528, a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court hold that such a right was not transferable, and Sir Barnes Peacock stated in his judgment: "Speaking for myself, I am not at all sure that a right of occupancy gained under Section 6, Act X of 1859, is necessarily heritable."

(3.) In Narendra Narayan Roy Chowdhry V/s. Ishan Chandra Sen (1874) 13 B.L.R. 274 a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court decided that such a right was not transferable.