Lachhmi And Others vs Mangal Singh
2024 Latest Caselaw 8958 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lachhmi And Others vs Mangal Singh on 26 April, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057253



RSA No.1713 of 1994 (O&M)                       -1-          2024:PHHC:057253

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 RSA No.1713 of 1994 (O&M)
                                                  Date of Order:26.04.2024

Lachhmi and others
                                                                    .Appellants
                                     Versus

Mangal Singh                                                      ..Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. M.K.Garg, Advocate, for the appellants.

Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the respondent.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

1. In this regular second appeal, the correctness of the concurrent

findings of fact arrived at by the courts below while decreeing the plaintiff's

suit for the grant of decree of declaration is challenged by the defendants. In

substance, Sh. Jumma son of Sh. Kalu was lessee over the agricultural land

measuring 114 kanals and 3 marlas.

2. The dispute is with regard to succession to the tenancy rights

between the son of Sh. Jumma on one side and the daughter and daughter-

in-law of a pre-deceased son on the other side. The son claims that he being

male lineal descendant of Sh. Jumma has right to inherit the tenancy rights

exclusively.

3. Both the courts below have relied upon Section 18 of the Pepsu

Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act 1953 (hereinafter

referred to as 'the 1953 Act') and Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act,

1887, which provide that lineal male descendant are only entitled to inherit

the tenancy rights. At one point of time Sh. Jumma claimed that he had

become owner of the property on promulgation of the 1953 Act, however, he

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057253

RSA No.1713 of 1994 (O&M) -2- 2024:PHHC:057253

failed to substantiate the same. It was declared that Sh. Jumma was a tenant,

however, he was not a occupancy tenant.

4. The learned counsel representing the appellant failed to draw

the attention of the court to any substantive error in the judgments passed by

the courts below.

5. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, no ground

to interfere is made out.

6. Dismissed.

7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

April 26, 2024                                        (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt                                                         JUDGE


Whether speaking/reasoned               :YES/NO
Whether reportable                      :YES/NO




                                       2 of 2