PROPRIETORS OF MAUZA SILAUTHI Vs. RAJ RUP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal point for decision in the present case is whether the rights enjoyed by a deceased occupancy tenant have devolved on the other occupancy tenants or whether they have lapsed to the landlords. It appears that one Akhe Ram who was an occupancy tenant of a plot of land situate in village Silothi of the Rohtak District died in the year 1941 leaving behind him neither a son nor a widow to succeed him. Some of his collaterals entered into possession of the property and a mutation was sanctioned in their favour on 31 August 1942. Thereupon, the plaintiffs who are the landlords brought the present suit for possession on the ground that the occupancy rights had reverted to them upon the death of Akhe Ram under Section 59, Punjab Tenancy Act. The trial Court granted the decree prayed for holding (a) that the land in suit was never occupied by the common ancestor; (b) that though there was a joint tenancy at one time that tenancy had ceased to exist in the year 1879 and (c) that the defendants had no right to succeed to the occupancy rights belonging to Akhe Ram either on the ground that the common ancestor of the deceased and of the defendants had occupied the land or on the ground that the tenancy was a joint tenancy to which the defendants could succeed by the rule of survivorship. The District Judge upheld this order in appeal. The defendants went up to the High Court at Lahore in second appeal and a learned Single Judge of the said Court disagreed with the view taken by the Courts below and dismissed the suit. The defendants are dissatisfied with the order and have come to this Court under para. 10 of the Letters Patent.

(2.) Sub-section (1) of Section 59, Punjab Tenancy Act, declares that when a tenant having right of occupancy dies, the right shall in the circumstances set out in the section devolve upon his male collateral relatives in the male line of descent from the common ancestor of the deceased tenant and those relatives provided the common ancestor occupied the land. Sub-section (1) provides that if the deceased tenant has left no such persons as are mentioned in Sub-section (1) the right of occupancy shall terminate and lapse to the landlords. It has been held repeatedly that joint tenants of a holding are to be regarded as a single tenant and that as long as any of them or the descendants of any of them survive the land- lord cannot claim the share of any tenant whose line has become extinct.

(3.) Two questions at once arise for consideration in the present case, namely, (1) whether the common ancestor of the deceased and of the defendants occupied the land in question, and (2) whether the defendants and the deceased occupied the land as joint tenants and whether the defendants are entitled to succeed to the occupancy rights even though the land was not occupied by a common ancestor.