The circumstances that give rise to this appeal may briefly be stated thus:—

A suit was brought by the appellants against the respondents on 19.2.50 in respect of the land in dispute with the allegation that the tenancy rights in the land were acquired by two brothers Sewa and Baga. These two men had a third brother Lala who had separated from Sewa and Baga before these two brothers acquired the tenancy rights in the land. The appellants therefore went on to say that Sewa and Baga were tenants in common of these two khatas which were entered in their name in the Settlement of Smt. 1982 in equal shares. Baga died without any male descendant in Smr.1988. The plaint was silent as to what happened between 1988, i.e. 1931 and 1948 A.D. But it appears from the case put forward by the appellants that after the death of Baga his half share in the two khatas was mutated half and half in the name of Lalas sons Adu and Norang respondents and Sewa. It was further alleged in the plaint that in 1948 Adu and Norang applied for division of the holding. On this Sewas sons who are the appellants before us objected that Adu and Norang had no right in the land. In consequence the Assistant Collector Rajgarh ordered on 6th October 1941 that the parties should get their rights determined in the civil court. Thereupon the present suit which has given rise to the second appeal was filed in the Munsifs court by the appellants. Their claim was that they were entitled to the entire khata by survivorship as Baga and Sewa were joint. They also claimed by adverse possession. The Munsifs court dismissed the suit in February 1951. There was an appeal to the Senior Civil Judge and he held that the suit should have been transferred to the revenue courts after the enforcement of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts Procedure and Jurisdiction Act. The judgment and decree of the Munsif were accordingly set aside and the case was sent to the Revenue Court for decision. The Assistant Collector decided against the appellants and dismissed the suit. In appeal the Commissioner Bikaner confirmed the decision of the trial court. Hence this second appeal to the Board. This appeal was heard and decided by the Board on 12-13-55 by a decision to which one of us was a party. The decrees and judgments of the lower courts were set aside and a decree was granted in favour of the appellants declaring them to be the sole tenants of the disputed land. This decision of the Board was challenged by a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan. The writ petition was allowed and the case was sent back to the Board for reconsideration on the lines pointed out by their Lordships of the High Court. This guidance may be summarised as below: —

(a) The question of joint tenancy should not have been made the basis of decision as the appellants had put forward a case of tenancy in common only. In this connection their Lordships referred to the discussion on the point in Cheshires Modern Real Property pages 543 to 552 and were pleased to observe that as soon as the shares of two tenants in some land are definite the tenancy is a tenancy in common and not a joint tenancy.

(b) The question as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the land on the basis of adverse possession was not considered by the Board.

(c) The question as to whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the land on the ground that Sewa and Baga were members of a joint Hindu family and therefore Sewa had succeeded by survivorship to his brother Baga on his death in preference to the descendants of Lala who was a separated brother, needed consideration.

(d) The law relating to the devolution of interest in occupancy tenancy in 1931 should also be determined.

(e) The question as to whether in the face of Sewa being alive the sons of Lala can succeed or not as Lala was admittedly dead at the time of Begas death.

We would take up the last point first. To ascertain the law with regard to the devolution of tenancy rights we have

Click Here to Read the rest of this document