Ghasiram vs Ganeshram

Bhutt, J.—This judgment shall also dispose of the connected appeal No. 203 of 1961. These appeals are by the plaintiffs.

Parties are related as below:

The present appeal arises out of Civil Suit No. 25-A of 1948 which was instituted by the plaintiffs, sons of Ramkishan, against Ghariram, son of Somdhar. The connected appeal arises out of Civil Suit No. 24-A of 1948 which was instituted by the same plaintiffs against Chamru, son of Mabadeo. These suits were dismissed and the appeals therefrom were filed against the sons and legal representatives of the defendants who had since died. These appeals were also dismissed.

The suits were filed for possession of the bhogra and ryoti fields which originally formed the tenancy holdings of Manbodh, and devolved on his widow Kaushilya on his demise. Civil Suit No. 24-A of 1948 was for possession of the holdings of mouza Pathari-Pali, and Civil Suit No. 25-A of 1948, of those of mouza Piparada, both the quondam State of Sarangarh. On the death of Kaushilya on 15-8-1946, the holdings were ordered by the Diwan of the State to be recorded in the names of the defendants as Gaontias of the respective villages, The suits were filed for cancellation of these orders and for possession of the holdings.

The question is regarding devolution of the holdings on the demise of Kaushilya. It was not disputed that this question would be determined by the provisions of the State wajib-ul-arz and not by the personal law. Clause 18 of the wajib-ul-arz deals with the devolution of the ryoti holdings as below:�

Ryoti holdings are transferable by inheritance to lineal descendants being males or collaterals who were sharers with the deceased. In the absence of any male heirs, the holding will devolve on his widow for her life or until she gets married, or on his minor daughter until her wedding and consummation of marriage.

There is no corresponding provision for the devolution of bhogra holdings. Under clause 6 of the State wajib-ul-arz, the lease of bhogra land was terming able with the period of the settlement or on the thekadar being ousted. This clause further shows that bhogra land is the creation of settlement. Accordingly the tenant gets therein no rights save and except those which are provided for In the State wajib-ul-arz. In these circumstances and in view of the fact that the tenancy rights in bhogra land are determined on the happening of certain events, it follows that those rights are not heritable. In this view, the bhogra holdings could not devolve on Kaushilya on the demise of Manbodh, but that point is immaterial.

The word ''sharers'' is not defined in clause 18 of the State wajib-ul-arz. It should, therefore, be given its ordinary meaning. The word connotes a person who shared the land or the profits with the deceased. This has relationship with his own and not derivative interest in the holding. Plaintiffs pleaded in this connection that Manbodh bad the intention to live with them but as he died in the meantime, his widow began to live jointly with them in accordance with his wishes. This arrangement, however, did not make them ''sharers'' as it did not clothe them with any interest in the holdings. As regards the deed of transfer, dated 18-1-1937, executed by the widow in their favour, it did not pass any title to them for want of registration nor could it create any independent interest ensuring beyond her life-time. The plaintiffs could not, therefore, inherit even the ryoti much less the bhogra, holdings.

The suits were accordingly rightly dismissed. The result is that the appeals fail and are dismissed with costs.