The central legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, the right of occupancy of a tenant devolves firstly upon his male lineal descendants, if any, in the male line of descent, excluding daughters from inheriting occupancy rights.

JUDGMENT

Alka Sarin, J. - The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below dismissing their suit for declaration and possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present lis are that one Chetu had two sons - Antu Ram and Kura. Antu Ram was married to Smt. Punni and they had a daughter, Mangli (the original plaintiff). Smt. Punni died on 27.11.1941 and Antu Ram married Smt. Ram Piari. Antu Ram died on 30.10.1945 and thereafter his widow, Smt. Ram Piari married Antu Ram's brother, Kura. Kura and Smt. Ram Piari had a son, Jagmal (the defendant). After the death of Antu Ram the mutation of inheritance of Marushi rights was sanctioned in favour of his second wife, Smt. Ram Piari, alone and after the death of Smt. Ram Piari on 18.11.1949 the mutation of her inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Kura Ram as she had married him after the death of Antu Ram. After the death of Kura Ram the mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his son, Jagmal (the defendant). Accordingly, the present suit was filed praying that Mangli (the original plaintiff) be declared owner to the extent of l/4th share in the suit land and for possession of the same and for restraining the defendant from alienating or from changing the nature of the suit land.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent averring that Smt. Punni was carrying a child of her previous husband in her womb when she married Antu Ram and that a daughter was bom to her two months after the marriage and that the marriage of that daughter was also performed by Kura Ram but she died about a year after her marriage. Accordingly, it was pleaded that Mangli (the original plaintiff) has no concern whatsoever with Antu Ram and Smt. Punni and that it was wrong that Smt. Punni was the real mother or mother of Mangli (the original plaintiff). It was further pleaded that even if Mangli (the original plaintiff) is proved to be the daughter of Antu Ram, she had no right to inherit the occupancy rights and that mutation of inheritance was correctly sanctioned firstly in favour of Smt. Ram Piari and after her death in favour of Kura Ram being a collateral of Antu Ram. By way of additional pleas it was pleaded that as per the custom of agricultural tribes of Punjab and Haryana, a female had only life interest in the ancestral or non-ancestral property of the deceased and the daughters were excluded and, therefore, Mangli (the original plaintiff) had no right to succeed to inherit the property of Antu Ram.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court on 05.01.2011 :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for ?

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for ? OPP

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties ? OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit ? OPD

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable ? OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit ? OPD

7. Relief.

5. During pendency of the suit Mangli (the original plaintiff) died on 29.06.2012 and her legal heirs were brought on record, who are the present plaintiff-appellants.

6. The Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2012, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants holding that even if it was proved that Mangli was the daughter of Antu Ram even then as per Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 she was unable to inherit the rights after the commencement of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 and that these rights had been converted in ownership after the death of Antu Ram and Smt. Ram Piari and the defendant-respondent being the son of Kura Ram inherited the occupancy rights being a male lineal descendant. Aggrieved by the said judgment and