HAR NARAIN SINGH Vs. NAND RAM SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal by defendant 1, Har Narain Singh, and defendant 2, Girja Saran Singh, against concurring decrees of the two lower Courts granting possession to the plaintiffs of property in list B of the plaint. The family pedigree is as follows:

(2.) Plaintiff 1 Nand Ram Singh and plaintiff 2 Anand Ram Singh, are the sons of Mt. Ablakha who was a daughter of the last male holder, Mahabir Singh. Mahabir Singh died on 26 January 1882 and it is not now disputed that when he died he was the sole survivor of joint family which had consisted Originally of his father, Debi Saran Singh; his berther, Ram Dahal Singh and himself and one son Bhola Singh who had predeceased him. The family property set out in the plaint consisted of list B, The major portion of list B consists of fixed rate tenancy, occupancy tenancy and cultivatory holdings. There is also some property consisting of groves, wells and houses in ruins. When Mahabir Singh died in 1882 the succession to the tenancies was governed by the North-Western Provinces Rent Act (12 of 1881), Section 9 which provides as follows: The right of tenants at fixed rates may devolve by succession or be transferred. No other right of occupancy shall be transferable in execution of a decree or otherwise than by voluntary transfer between persons in favour of whom as cosharers such right originally arose, or who have become by succession cosharers therein. When any person entitled to such last mentioned right dies, the right shall devolve as if it were land : Provided that no collateral relative of the deceased who did not then share in the cultivation of his holding shall be entitled to inherit under this clause.

(3.) At that period therefore the devolution was similar to land, that is to proprietary rights in land, and in case of Mahabir : Singh who was a Hindu, the devolution was by Hindu law. Accordingly on the death of Mahabir Singh who was the last male survivor of this Hindu joint family the only persons entitled to hold his estate were his two widows, Mt. Lachminan and Mt. Lakhpati. These two ladies executed a document on 19 December 1882 by which they divided the estate into four portions, one portion for each of them, one portion for Mt. Jogta, the widow of the predeceased son, Bhola Singh, and one portion for Mt. Jamna Kunwar, the widow of the predeceased brother Ram Dahal Singh. Now neither of these two ladies, Mt. Jogta nor Mt. Jamna, had any right to hold any portion of the property under Hindu law. Their rights were limited to maintenance.