DALIP K. KAPUR, J.

( 1 ) THIS is a Regular Second Appeal arising from a suit brought by Ram Mehar against his sister Shrimati , Dakhan, to claim a declaration that the order dated 26th September, 1958 passed by the Revenue Officer, Mehrauli, sanctioning mutation No. 812 in the name of the plaintiff and the defendant in equal shares, was illegal and void and that the plaintiff alone was entitled to the whole land. As a consequential relief an injunction was sought to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff s possession of the land in dispute. It may be mentioned that the land, consisting of 3/4th share in 166 Bighas, 19 Biswas of agricultural land situated in village Ravta, was held by Kishan Sahai, the father of the plaintiff and defendant as a Bhumidar. After the death of Kishan Sahai the afore- mentioned mutation was made by the Revenue Officer with respect to the land in the joint names of his son and daughter in accordance with the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. The exact date of Kishan Sahai s death is not clear from the record but it is submitted by the plaintiff that it was shortly after the coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

( 2 ) THE trial court found that the land in dispute was being cultivated by the plaintiff along with his father Shri Kishan Sahai, and after the latter s death he had continued to cultivate the same. The defendant had also contended that she had been in cultivating possession of the land along with the plaintiff. But this was not established by any evidence. Hence it was held by the court that the defendant was not in cultivating possession of the land. On a construction of the provisions of the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and the provisions of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the trial court held that the rule of inheritance governing the parties was that which was to be found in the Hindu Succession Act and, hence the mutation in the joint names of the plaintiff and the defendant was up-held and the suit was dismissed.

( 3 ) THE plaintiff appealed to the Additional District Judge who concurred with the reasoning of the Subordinate Judge and dismissed the appeal. The plaintiff then preferred TO a Second Appeal to this Court which was heard by me sitting alone. I found that there was a decision of the Punjab High Court reported as Gopi Chand and others v. Smt. Bhagwani Devi, AIR 1964, Punjab 2720), in which P. C. Pandit J. had held that the rule of succession to be found in the Hindu Succession Act was applicable also to Bhumidars under the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954 and that the rule of succession in Section 50 of the latter Act was not applicable having been repealed by the Hindu Succession Act and particularly by Section 4 thereof. As I found that the matter was of some importance, I REFERRED TO the case to a larger Bench vide my judgment dated 19th February, 1971.

( 4 ) AT the hearing of this appeal it was found that there was no representation on behalf of the respondent. As the matter was one of importance we appointed Mr. Yogeshwar Dayal, as amicus curiae to assist us in determining the questions which have arisen in this appeal.

( 5 ) THE main question to be determined in this case is solely a question of law. Either the rule of succession in the Delhi Land Reforms Act or the rule of succession in the Hindu Succession Act governs the parties. If the Hindu Succession Act applies, then the plaintiff and the defendant have to succeed to their late father as co-heirs each entitled to an equal share. If the Delhi Land Reforms Act is to apply then the succession has to be according to the provisions of Section 50 of that Act. According to that Section an unmarried daughter succeeds to a Bhumidar only if there is no superior heir. On the other hand, a married daughter does not succeed at all. The defendant is a married daughter and, therefore, she does not have any right to succeed her father. The Delhi Land Reforms Act is an earlier Act and the questio

Click Here to Read the rest of this document