Succession to tenancy rights of a tenant-at-will prior to the coming into force of the H. P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, in the areas to which the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, were applicable, would be governed by the general law of succession, viz, Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

R. L. Khurana, J. This Regular Second Appeal has been directed by the plaintiff Suit. Nathi against the judgment and decree dated 24-2-1989 of the learned District Judge, Mandi, Camp at Kuilu, affirming the judgment and decree dated 296-1985 of the learned Sub-Judge First Class, Kullu, passed in Civil Suit No. 52 of 1^85/77 of 1982.

2. The subject matter of the dispute between the parties is the land measuring 3-7-0 Bighas comprising of khasra No 1199 and 1356, khata No. 268-min, and khatoni No. 654 of Phati Kashawari Kothi Kais, Tehsil and District Kullu, specifically described in the plaint and hereinafter referred to as the land in dispute.

3. One Bhole Ram was in possession of the land in dispute as a non-occupancy tenant. He died about thirteen years before the filing of the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, that is, sometime in the year 1969. After his death, the necessary mutation of inheritance of his tenancy rights qua the land in dispute came to be sanctioned in favour of the parties in equal shares being the widow and son, respectively.

4. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and injunction that she is the exclusive owner and in possession of the land in dispute by way of inheritance from her husband Bhole Ram. The defendant is not the son of Bhole Ram It was averred that the defendant is the son of Smt. Lihati, wife of Khekh Ram Alternatively, it was averred that the defendant is the illegitimate son of the deceased Bhole Ram and as such not entitled to succeed to the estate of deceased Bhole Ram. The mutation sanctioned in favour of defendant is wrong, null and void. It was further pleaded that on the basis of such wrong mutation in his favour, the defendant has started interfering with the possession of the plaintiff over the land in dispute.

5. The defendant while resisting the suit claimed to have inherited the land in dispute from Bhole Ram deceased being his son to the exclusion of the plaintiff it was pleaded that Smt. Lihati was the legally wedded wife of the deceased Bhole Ram. He asserted himself to be the owner and in possession of the land in dispute. 6 On the basis of the pleadings, the parties were put to trial on the following issues :—

1. Whether the plaintiff is the son of Shri Bhole Ram deceased ? If so its effect on the suit property ? O. P. P.

2. Whether defendant No 1 is the widow of Shri Bhole Ram, if so its effect ? O. P. D.

3. Whether the suit is time barred ? O. P. D.

4. If issue No. 1 is not proved, whether the suit is not maintainable ? O. P. D.

5. Whether the suit is properly valued for the purpose of court fee ? O. P. P.

6. Whether the suit land was mortgaged to Smt Khelu by the defendant No. i ? If so its effect ? (X P. D. 2 6A. Whether the defendant No. 3 is a bona fide purchaser of the land in dispute as alleged ? If so its effect ? O. P. D 3

7. Relief. 7 The learned Sub-Judge answered issues No. 1 and 2 in the negative and decided the same against the defendant. Similarly, issues No. 4 and 5 were also answered in the negative and decided against the plaintiff. Under issue No. 3, the parties were held to be the owners and in possession of the land in dispute to the extent of half share each by way of succession from the deceased Bhole Ram

8. The appeal preferred by the plaintiff before the learned District Judge against the judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge was dismissed vide the impugned judgment and decree dated 24-2.-1989. The judgment and decree of the learned Sub-Judge dismissing the suit of the plaintiff were affirmed. The learned District Judge, however, came to the conclusion that the plaintiff was not proved to be the widow of the deceased Bhole Ram. The learned District Judge further came to the conclusion that even if the plaintiff is held to be the widow of the deceased, she was not entitled to succeed to the tenancy rights of the deceased qua the land in dispute in the presence of the defendant, the son of the deceased The mutation of inheri