IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. R.S.A. No. 110 of 2006. Judgement reserved on: Date of decision : March 22, 2006. ____________________________________________________________ Gopal Singh & ors. ……….. Appellants. Versus Biri Singh & anr. ……. Respondents. ____________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting? For the appellants: Mr.G.R.Palsra, Advocate. For the respondents: _____________________________________________________________ Surjit Singh J. (Oral). Heard. The only question raised in the appeal is that when deceased Tara Singh died in the year 1951-52 and the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, governed the inheritance of tenancy rights of tenant, Tara Singh’s widow Smt. Dropti Devi could not have inherited the tenancy rights alongwith her sons Budhi Singh and Hem Singh. The matter has been examined by the first appellate court by referring to the provisions of Sections 59 and 112 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The learned first appellate court has _____________________________________________________ Whether reporters of local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? - 2 - observed that Section 112 provided for the inheritance of tenancy rights even by a widow, provided there was an agreement to that effect between the heirs as specified in Section 59 of the said Act and the widow. The very fact that mutation was attested in favour of the two sons and the widow implies that there was some understanding that the widow shall also inherit, which understanding can be construed to be an agreement within the meaning of section 112 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Learned counsel for the appellants says that Hem Singh and Budhi Singh were minor at the time when the mutation was attested and therefore, they could not have entered into any agreement and so the attestation of mutation of tenancy rights in favour of the widow of Tara Singh needs to be ignored. After the attestation of mutation of inheritance of tenancy rights under the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, proprietary rights in respect of the land, in respect whereof tenancy rights were inherited by the two sons and the widow were conferred upon the said two sons and the widow in the year 1967 in accordance with the provisions of H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. Admittedly, the two sons of the deceased were major at that time. Proprietary rights were conferred upon the said two sons and the widow, who was the real mother of the aforesaid two sons of Tara Singh. It appears from the reading of the judgements of the trial court and also of the first appellate court that mutation regarding conferment of proprietary rights was attested in the presence of the sons of Tara Singh. Nazarana - 3 - payable for the conferment of proprietary rights was deposited in the names of two sons and the widow, as is made out from a reading of the judgement of the first appellate court. That means the two sons of the deceased were aware of the fact that their mother had inherited the tenancy rights in respect of the tenancy holding of their father alongwith them in 1967, when they were major. Not only that they were aware of this fact, they impliedly accepted their mother to be a co-tenant with them when the Nazarana payable for conferment of the proprietary rights were deposited in the names of all the three tenants and the mutation of conferment of proprietary rights was attested in favour of all three of them. In view of the above stated position, I do not think that any question of law much-less a substantial question of law is raised in the present appeal. Hence, the same is dismissed. March 22, 2006. ( Surjit Singh), (Hem) Judge.