P.K. Palli. J.{Oral) :- Both these appeals are proposed lo be disposed of by a common judgment as the questions of law and facts involved in both these appeals are identical except that the tenant lands are situated in two different revenue estates that is Behli and Sujhiala. II may also be noticed that two separate suits were filed by the same plaintiffs against the same defendant. Two separate appeals were filed, which were also disposed of by the first appellate Court by a common judgment. The present appeals have been filed by the defendant. The parties, herein-after in this judgment, shall be referred to as plaintiff and defendant. 2, One Daya Ram filed a suit stating that Mst. Thunthi was a tenant on the suit land, who died in the year 1964. On her death the plaintiff claimed to have succeeded to her rights in the land being her male collateral.

3. Defendant Mansha Ram on the death of Mst. Thunthi claimed succession to her right, title and interest in the suit land on the basis of a Will having been executed by Mst. Thunthi in his favour. Mutation was sanctioned in his favour, which was up held by the Financial Commissioner vide order dated March 12, 1981.

4. According to the plaintiff, Mst. Thunthi hoc given the suit Kind to one Maru for the purpose of cultivation and defendant forcibly took its possession in the year 1976. The plaintiff, thus, claimed a decree that he has become owner of the suit land and the defendant has nothing to do with it.

5. Defendant, Mansha Ram, while laying contest to the suit, relied upon the ‘Will’ dated March 20, 1963 and claimed himself to be owner in possession of the suit land on the death of Mst. Thunthi.. Relationship of deceased Mst Thunthi with the plaintiff was denied. The plea of limitation was also raised by the defendant.

6. The trial Court., on appreciation of the material placed on record, decree the suit holding that the plaintiff has succeeded to the suit land on the basis of inheritence and the entire in the record in favour of the defendant are wrong and inoperative qua the rights of the plaintiff and by way of consequential relief, decree for possession has been granted to him.

7. On appeal by the defendant, the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court stands upheld

8. Mr. Bhupender Gupta, learned Counsel appearing for the defendant, while opening his address of argument, contends that both-the Courts below have wrongly held that the ‘Will’ could not validly be executed by deceased Mst Thunthi. who was a tenant on the land in question and the execution of the Will a not a transfer of property under the provisions of Transfer of Property Act nor there is am such bar under the statute that "Will" cannot be made in such a situation According to the learned counsel, it was a mode of succession chosen by the tenant and Section 6X of the Himachal Pradesh Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Apt. 1953. does not prohibit such a testament and the courts below have gone wrong in holding that there is a complete bar for the tenant, as provided in the above said Section Learned counsel also relics upon mo judgments reported in AIR (31) 1944 Oudh. 65. (Raja Surender Vikram Singh Rani Munia Kunwar and another) and AIR 1959 Jammu and Kashmir 62 (Leila Devi Dass v. Panna Lal), in support of his contentions.

9. It may also be noticed that Mr. Gupta has also urged that the present suits are barred by limitation, as the order of mutation could be laid challenged within one year, as provided for the Article 100 of the Limitation Act

10. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff besides relying upon the observations made in the impugned judgments of the Courts below submits that she tenant can not be permitted to nullify that effect of the provision contained in the aforesaid Act which speciaifically declares any transfer of interest by the tenant except-as permitted by the provision to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of S.54 of the above said Act. Mr. Kuthiala further relies