Source: http://www.internationalattorney.info/2014/10/tenancy-can-be-inherited-under-section.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 02:35:08+00:00

Document:
Present: Nasir-Ul-Mulk & Amir Hani Muslim, JJ.
Civil Appeal No. 1143 of 2011, decided on 21.2.2013.
Mian Allah Nawaz, Sr. ASC and Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR for Appellants.
Mr. S. Najam-ul-Hassan Kazmi, Sr. ASC for Respondent Nos. 1-6, 9(i-iv, vi).
Nasir-ul-Mulk, J.--Lal Din, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners and the respondents, purchased on 07.01.1941, from the Province of Punjab, in open auction, agricultural land measuring 1800 kanals in Tehsil Khan Pur, District Rahim Yar Khan. The property was a colony land and auctioned under Section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 (hereinafter referred to as "the Colonization Act"). Out of the price of Rs.12162/-, Lal Din paid Rs.1945/- as first installment. He died in the year 1945 survived by a widow, five sons and five daughters. His eldest son, Saeed-ud-Din, made a statement to the Patwari informing him about the death of his father, giving details of the legal heirs with a request that the necessary mutation may be recorded in favour of the sons. The Patwari prepared a report, which was made note of by the Revenue Officer on 27.11.1946. Malkiaty pata was sanctioned on 19.01.1952. The mutation was eventually attested in favour of the sons of Lal Din on 17.05.1956, after they paid the entire amount of the installments. The afore-stated facts are not disputed.
"Learned counsel inter alia contends that in view of the facts and circumstances of this case that the female lineal descendants of Lal Din on his death have not acquired tenancy rights in the property, which was transferred in the name of male lineal descendants, who thereafter made payment of said property and got converted the same into ownership (conveyance/patta lease) in the year 1952, and in view of the judgment reported as Imam Bibi v. Allah Ditta (PLD 1989 Supreme Court 384) they, being the lineal female descendants of Lal Din, cannot claim their share.
2. We have pointed out to the learned counsel that if for the sake of arguments, his contention is accepted, we have to dilate upon this fact as well that the lineal descendents of Lal Din have acquired rights in the property by means of conveyance in the year 1952 on the basis of tenancy rights of their predecessor and no sooner on the strength of the same, such rights are acquired, all the legal heirs including the female lineal descendents shall be entitled to claim the right in the property? Therefore, to inter alia examine these propositions of law, leave to appeal is granted."
3. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that but for the first installment paid by Lal Din, the remaining sale price was deposited by his sons and no contribution to the same was made by their sisters; that the suit, having being filed forty years after the property was entered in the names of the appellants or their predecessor-in-interest, was barred by time and no plausible explanation has been furnished to explain the delay. It was further pointed out that Lal Din's sons did not conceal his other legal heirs and on the first opportunity disclosed to the Patwari the names of all of them. He submitted that under Section 20 of the Colonization Act the property left behind by the original tenant upon his death was to devolve upon his male lineal descendants and it was done accordingly in the present case. He contended that the High Court had misinterpreted Section 19-A which came into force in the year 1951 whereas Lal Din died in the year 1945, and as a matter of law, the said provision was applicable in the case of tenants dying after coming into force of the said amendment. In support of his contentions on the legal proposition, the learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Court in Mst. Imam Bibi v. Allah Ditta (PLD 1989 SC 384), Mst. Ghulam Bano v. Mst. Noor Jehan (2005 SCMR 658). Further support was sought from Umar Din v. Mst, Sharifan (PLD 1995 SC 686) & Mst. Fateh Bibi v. Mst. Fatima Bibi (2010 SCMR 760).
4. Responding to the above arguments, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that the question on limitation is not relevant in the case of inheritance; that the widow and daughters of Lal Din became entitled to the shar'i share in his legacy upon his death even if the remaining installments were paid by the sons. That the widow and daughters of Lal Din were entitled at least to a share in the property to the extent related to the installments paid by Lal Din. He sought support from the minority view in the recent case handed down by a five Member Bench in Ghulam Haider v. Murad.
"19-A. Succession of the tenancy.--When after the coming; into force the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) (Amendment) Act, 1951, any Muslim tenant dies, succession to the tenancy shall devolve on his heirs in accordance with the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat), and nothing contained in Section 20 to this Act shall be applicable to this case."
(e) the successor or successors nominated by the Collector from among the persons enumerated in clause (b) of this section."
"12. Section 15 of the Act provides in express words that "A purchaser from Government of land who has been placed in possession of the land by order of the Collector shall be deemed to be a tenant of such land until the full amount of the purchase money with any interest due thereon has been paid and the other conditions set forth in the statement of the conditions of sale issued by the Collector have been fulfilled". On the strength of this statutory provision Nizam Din was a tenant of the Government land and admittedly price had yet to be paid by him. The compulsive effect of such a condition in view of the provisions of Government Grants Act of 1895 was considered in the case of Province of the Punjab through Collector, Sheikhupura v. Anjuman Talim-il-Islam and others PLD 1987 SC 123. The effect of the statutory provision referred to would clearly be that Section 19-A of the Act would not be available for determining the heirs of Nizam Din who died on 28.2.1951 and that the mutation of inheritance challenged by the plaintiff-appellant was in accordance of inheritance challenged by the plaintiff-appellant was in accordance with law governing the inheritance as provided in Section 20 of the Act."
7. The High Court has further held that even the succession to the tenancy of Lal Din would be regulated by the Muslim Personal Law. This interpretation again is contrary to the plain language of the above statutory provisions. Lal Din was granted the tenancy under the Colonization Act and thus was to be regulated by its provisions and not the general law of inheritance. At the time of his death, Lal Din was still a tenant, having paid only one installment and obviously the succession to the tenancy was to devolve in accordance with the provision of the Act, namely Section 20. By such provision only the sons could succeed to the tenancy. Having acquired the tenancy the sons became tenants in their own right. They paid the remaining installments. Section 15 of the Colonization Act provides that a purchase from the Government under the Act shall be deemed to be tenant until full payment of the purchase money. Upon payment of the entire installments the sons who till then were tenants became full owners in the year 1956. They had thus become owners in their own right under the provision of the Act and not as legal heirs of Lal Din. The High Court has therefore erred in holding that the tenancy, or for that matter the ownership of the property, was subject to distribution under the Islamic Law of Inheritance. In Mst. Ghulam Bano v. Mst. Noor Jehan (ibid) the daughters of the original tenant under the Colonization Act. claimed share in the legacy of their father on the basis of Section 19-A of the Act as well as Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. The contention on their behalf was repelled and it was held that where the muslim tenant had died before the year 1951, his daughters could neither claim the benefit of Section 19-A nor Section 2-A of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962. The Court placed reliance upon the principle laid down in the case of Mst. Imam Bibi v. Allah Ditta (ibid).
8. In the light of the afore-stated legal proposition, the arguments of the learned counsel for the respondents that they shall at least be entitled to their shar'i share to the extent of the first installment paid by Lal Din is also not tenable. This argument may have been valid had Lal Din's sons inherited the tenancy under the general law. The property devolved upon them under the statutory provision of Section 20 of the Colonization Act and not by way of inheritance.
9. For the foregoing reasons the impugned judgment and decree passed in favour of the respondents cannot be sustained. Consequently, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and the decree of the trial Court. Consequently, the suit filed by the respondents is dismissed with no order as to cost.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.