Non-occupancy tenancy rights are inheritable under the Hindu Succession Act, contradicting earlier rulings that deemed them non-heritable.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The present appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 20.4.2005, passed by learned Additional District Judge, (Presiding Officer), Fast Track Court, Solan, District Solan, H.P. (learned First Appellate Court), vide which the judgment and decree dated 30.7.2003, passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Arki, District Solan, HP, (learned Trial Court) were upheld. (Parties shall hereinafter be referred to in the same manner as they were arrayed before the learned Trial Court for convenience.

2. Briefly stated, the facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the plaintiff filed a civil suit before the learned Trial Court for seeking permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the peaceful possession of the plaintiff and cutting and removing the trees from the suit land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 3/3, Khasra Nos. 9 and 11, measuring 33-15 bighas, situated in Village Samoth, Pargana Deora, Tehsil Solan, H.P. It was asserted that the plaintiffs are joint owners-in-possession of the suit land. The defendants trespassed into the suit land on 20.5.1996 and threatened to cultivate it, cut and remove the standing trees from it. Hence, a suit was filed for seeking relief(s) mentioned above.

3. The suit was opposed by filing a written statement, as amended before the learned Trial Court and the learned Appellate Court, taking preliminary objections regarding lack of maintainability, locus standi and cause of action, suit being barred by limitation, suit being bad for non-joinder of necessary parties, suit having not been properly valued for Court fees and jurisdiction, suit being bad for proper identification of the suit land, plaintiffs being estopped to file the present suit by their own acts and conduct, and the plaintiffs having concealed the material facts from the Court. The contents of the plaint were denied on merits. It was asserted that the possession of the suit land measuring 17-9 bigha was with the defendants. The pencil entry of the name of the defendant was made in the Jamabandi, which was removed without any basis. The plaintiff No. 2 quarrelled with the defendant over taking possession, and a criminal case was registered. Defendant had also filed a correction application before Teshildar, Arki, in which an inquiry was conducted. Possession of the defendant was verified in Khasra No.11/1. The plaintiffs concealed the family settlement effected between the plaintiffs and defendant Tulsi Ram, which was reduced into writing on 10.1.1977. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be dismissed.

4. A replication denying the contents of the written statement and affirming those of the plaint was filed. It was asserted that no pencil entry was made in favour of Tulsi Ram. The defendant did not raise any objection at the time of the removal of the entry. The defendants never remained in possession of the suit land. They interfered with the possession of the plaintiffs. It was specifically denied that any family settlement had taken place between the parties. It was asserted that Bhagi Rath was the tenant, who was conferred with the proprietary rights under the H.P. Abolition of Big Land Estate and H.P. Land Reforms Act. He deposited the compensation and became the owner. Defendants had no right over the suit land. Hence, it was prayed that the suit be decreed.

5. Learned Trial Court framed the following issues on 30