One co-sharer cannot induct a tenant into his share as well as the share of the other co-sharer in the land so as to make the tenancy binding upon the other co-sharer, except with the consent of the other co-sharer.

( 1 ) THIS Second Appeal was filed against the judgment and order of the learned District Judge, Mandi and Chamba Districts, at Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, dated 31st October, 1966, in Civil Miscellaneons Appeal No. 282 of 1965 on his file, whereby he allowed the appeal partly and modified the order of the learned Compensation Officer, Sarkaghat, dated 4th September, 1965.

( 2 ) THE appellant herein, Kahnu, filed an application before the Compensation Officer, Sarkaghat, District Mandi, Himachal Pradesh, under Section 11 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953, for the grant of proprietary rights in respect of Kitat 69 area measuring 108 Bighas and 10 Biswas comprised in Khewat Khatauni 18 min/55 min 58 in village Chanauta alleging that he was the cultivating tenant of the aforesaid land and was paying rent for the same to the landlords. The said land was owned by two persons, mst. Maghi and Hari Singh, each having a half share therein. Mst. Maghi died sometime before the filing of the application, and the exact date of her death is not available in the record. On her death her share was inherited by Hirda Ram, the respondent herein and mutation took place in his name. Hirda Ram and Hari Singh were impleaded as respondents in the aforesaid application filed by Kahnu. Hari Singh admitted the claim of the applicant (appellant herein) and remained ex parte. Hirda Ram (respondent herein) opposed the application and pleaded that the applicant was not his tenant, that he never gave his land to him, and that he himself was cultivating his own share.

( 3 ) ON the said pleadings, the learned Compensation Officer framed the following issues :-

" (1) Is Kahnu tenant holding this land as a tenant of both Hirda and Hari Singh owners? (2) Is Kahnu tenant a tenant of Hari Singh co-sharer only? (3) Relief. "

( 4 ) ON a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Compensation Officer, by his judgment dated 4th September, 1965, held that Kahnu was cultivating the entire land of 108 Bighas and 10 Biswas for many years as non-occupancy tenant even during the life-time of Maghi, that Hirda inherited the share of Mst. Maghi, that neither Mst. Maghi during her life-time nor Hirda after he has inherited his share had objected to the possession of Kahnu who remained in peaceful possession of the whole land, that the whole land of 108 Bighas and 10 Biswas was jointly owned by Hirda and Hari Singh as co-sharers, and that Kahnu was the non-occupancy tenant of both Hirda and Hari Singh, and was not the tenant of Hari Singh only. In the result, the learned Compensation Officer accepted the application of Kahnu and conferred proprietary rights over the entire land as claimed in the application.

( 5 ) AGAINST that judgment and order, Hirda filed an appeal in the Court of the District Judge, Mandi, under Section 104 of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act, 1953. Kahnu and Hari Singh were shown as respondents Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. By his judgment dated 31st October, 1966, the learned District Judge held that the share of Mst. Maghi had been mutated in the name of Hirda, that the land was jointly owned by Hirda and Hari Singh, that it was Hari Singh who created the tenancy being in occupation as a share-holder, that Hirda or Mst. Maghi never created any tenancy, that under those circumstances Kahnu could not be held to be tenant of Hirda, that Hari Singh could create the tenancy of only his own share, but not of the co-sharer, and Hirda was not bound by such tenancy, and that the Compensation Officer had wrongly held Kahnu to be the tenant of the whole of the land under both the landlords, and also wrongly granted proprietary rights to Kahnu in respect of the share of Hirda also. In the result, the learned District Judge allowed the appeal and modified the order of the learned Compensation Officer to the extent that Kahnu was entitled to