Skip to content


Budhu Singh and ors. Vs. NaraIn and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectTenancy
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 719 of 1948
Judge
Reported inAIR1952P& H220
AppellantBudhu Singh and ors.
RespondentNaraIn and anr.
Appellant Advocate J.L. Bhatia, Adv.
Respondent Advocate S.D. Bahri, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the..........rights to the landlord narain singh on the 26th september, 1942. the collaterals of the husband hira devi brought a suit for declaration on the 5th january, 1943 to the effect that the mortgage would not affect their reversionary rights. the defence was that there was no joint tenancy and that the common ancestor did not occupy the land. the suit was dismissed and on second appeal to the high court it was remanded on the 22nd, november, 1945, by din mohammad, j. for the trial of two issues:'i. whether there was a joint acquisition of thetenancy rights by the four sons of tika. 2. whether the joint tenancy if proved had lostits original character.'it has been held by both the courts that there was a joint acquisition, but it had lost its original character subsequently.2. on the 2nd.....
Judgment:

Kapur, J.

1. This is a plaintiffs' appeal against a judgment and decree of the District Judge T.C. Sethi affirming a judgment and decree of the trial Court and holding that the plaintiffs have no right to challenge the alienation made by Hira Devi in favour of the landlord. This alienation was by way of mortgage of occupancy rights to the landlord Narain Singh on the 26th September, 1942. The collaterals of the husband Hira Devi brought a suit for declaration on the 5th January, 1943 to the effect that the mortgage would not affect their reversionary rights. The defence was that there was no joint tenancy and that the common ancestor did not occupy the land. The suit was dismissed and on second appeal to the High Court it was remanded on the 22nd, November, 1945, by Din Mohammad, J. for the trial of two issues:

'I. Whether there was a joint acquisition of thetenancy rights by the four sons of Tika. 2. Whether the joint tenancy if proved had lostits original character.'

It has been held by both the Courts that there was a joint acquisition, but it had lost its original character subsequently.

2. On the 2nd September, 1888, there was a partition among the occupancy tenants and the land in dispute fell to the share of Lehna Singh to whose branch the husband of the mortgagor belonged. On the 22nd May, 1908, the landlords partitioned the occupancy rights and the tenancy of Hira Devi the mortgagor, fell to the share of Narain Singh alone. Exhibits D. 7 to D. 16, which are judgment in subsequent suits, show that the landlords had brought separate suits against their own tenants for enhancement of rent. On these findings it has been found by the District Judge, that there was a partition among the landlords andamong the tenants and that each of the landlords had his own tenants and that Hira Devi's husband was a tenant of Narain Singh alone.

3. In appeal Mr. Bhatla submits, relying on a Bench judgment of this Court in 'PROPRIETORS OF MUZA SILAUTHI v. RAJ RUP', 51 Pun L R 100, that where division takes place among the joint tenants for the convenience of cultivation the jointness of the tenancy is not put an end to. But the present is not a case of that kind. Here there is a complete partition among the tenants as also among the landlords, as that each landlord has his own tenants, and as I have said before Hira Devi's husband was the tenant of Narain Singh in these circumstances plaintiffs have no right to challenge the alienation made by Hira Devi. The appeal is therefore dismissed with costs throughout.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //