Suba Singh and Others vs Ram Chand and Others

D.K. Mahajan, J.—This second appeal is by the defendants and is directed against the concurrent decisions of the courts below. The plaintiffs are the occupancy tenants, who after the coming into force of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act (8 of 1953) have become the owners of the occupancy tenancies and the landlords'' rights in these tenancies have come to an end. The defendants are the erstwhile landlords. The dispute now merely relates to the Shamilat of Thula Lalu Nand Ram. The plaintiffs claim a share in the shamilat which corresponds to the area of which they were tenants and of which they are now the proprietors, whereas the defendants dispute their rights to any share in the aforesaid Shamilat land. The courts below have decreed the suit and the defendants now appeal.

Two contentions have been advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants, namely,-

That the occupancy tenants, who have become proprietors under Act No. 8 of 1953, have no right to the Shamilat of Thula Lalu Nand Ram, and

that, in the alternative, if they are entitled to the Shamilat, they are entitled to it Hasab Rasad Jaddi and not Hasab Rasad Khewat.

So far as the first contention is concerned, it is wholly without substance because section 3 of the Act which is in these terms:-

Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any law, custom or usage for the time being in force, on or from the appointed day-

(a) all rights, title and interest, (including the contingent interest, if any recognised by any law, custom or usage for the time being in force and including the share in the Shamilat with respect to the land concerned) of the landlord in the land held under him by an occupancy tenant shall be extinguished, and such rights, title and interest shall be deemed to vest in the occupancy tenants free from all encumbrances, if any, created by the landlord: Provided that the occupancy tenant shall have the option not to acquire the share in the Shamilat by giving a notice in writing to the Collector within six months of the publication of this Act or from the date of his obtaining occupancy rights whichever is later:

(b) * * * * *

(c) * * * * *

(d) * * * * *

makes the occupancy tenants entitled to the Shamilat of Thula Lalu Nand Ram and in view of this provision this contention is rejected.

With regard to the second contention, the learned District Judge in a very elaborate judgment has come to the conclusion that the division of the Shamilat from the year 1897 onwards has been on the basis of holdings, i.e. Hasab Rasad Khewat and not according to the ancestral shares. The only entry which supports the contention of the appellants is the Wajab-ul-Arz of 1880, Exhibit D. 4, but it appears that no effect was given to this entry after the division of the Shamilat in the year 1897-98 and in actual practice thereafter the Shamilat has been divided according to the holdings. In this view of the matter, there is no force in this contention either.

This appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed but there will be no order as to costs.