The Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 4 overrides Section 59(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act. Under Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, a female Hindu in possession of property becomes the full owner thereof.

1. This second appeal is directed against the concurrent decisions of the Courts below dismissing the plaintiffs suit.

2. In order to appreciate the controversy in this appeal, a short pedigree table may be set down:-

-

CHET RAM

(Occupancy tenant: died 1909)

__________________________________|__________________________________

| |

Mst. Rupan(widow) Mst. Sama (widow)

| |

Tokha Mst. Patori

(adopted son) (daughter)

plaintiff. |

Ganpat(daughters son)

3 On the death of Chet Ram, there was a dispute between his two widows and his adopted son Tokha. This dispute was settled by a compromise before the Revenue authorities. The compromise was that the widows will make a statement before the revenue officer and get the mutation sanctioned in all the three villages in which the land will be entered as one-third, one-third and one-third in the names of the adopted son and the two widows. In case they do not make such a statement, then the land in village Sheikhupura will remain in possession of the adopted son and the land in villages Kheowali and Phaggu would remain in possession of the two widows. Steps were taken to get the mutation entered but they failed. The result was that the adopted son remained in possession of the land in Sheikhupura and the two widows remained in possession of the land in the two remaining villages. It was also provided in the compromise that on the death of any one of the widows, the land left by her will be mutated half and half between the adopted son and the surviving widow. However, on the death of Rupan, which took place in 1932, this clause of the compromise was not given effect to and in village Kheowali her share of the land was mutated in the name of Mst. Sama and half of it was not mutated in the name of Tokha as provided in the compromise. It may be mentioned that Tokha took no steps to enforce the compromise within 12 years of the death of Mst. Rupan. In the year 1957, Mst. Sama gifted the land in village Kheowali to her daughter Mst. Patori. This led to the present suit by Tokha to challenge the gift. A number of pleas were advanced by Tokha but without success and he has failed in the trial Court as well as in the lower appellate Court. He has now come up in second appeal to this Court.

4. The contention of Mr. Aggarwal in the second appeal is that Tokha can challenge the gift made by Mst. Sama because Mst. Sama was holding the occupancy rights on the date when she made the gift and under Section 59(3) of the Punjab Tenancy Act, her gift would be void. Therefore, the short question that has to be settled is whether the gift made by Mst. Sama is void?

5. There are two ways of looking at the matter. One, what is the effect of the Hindu Succession Act on Section 59(3) of the Tenancy Act? Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act is in the following terms:-

-

"4. (1) Save as otherwise expressly provided in this Act,-- (a) any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu law or any custom or usage as part of that law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to have effect with respect to any matter for which provision is made in this Act;

(b) any other law in force immediately before the commencement of this Act shall cease to apply to Hindus in so far as it is inconsistent with any of the provisions contained in this Act.

(2) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that nothing contained in this Act shall be deemed to affect the provisions of any law for the time being in force providing for the prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings or for the fixation of ceilings or for the devolution of tenancy rights in respect of such holdings."

6. Thus it provides that its provisions will override all other provisions in other laws which are inconsistent with its provisions. Section 14 is one of the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. It stipulates that any female