TULSI AND ORS. Vs. TEU AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD .

(2.) APPELLANTS -plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration that they had succeeded to the entire share of deceased Ida in the suit land, which was held by him and the appellants, as tenants, in equal shares, on the basis of a Will executed by said Ida in favour of appellants -plaintiffs in the year 1966. Ida died in June, 1975. Mutation of his estate was attested in favour of the appellants -plaintiffs and the respondent -defendant, in equal shares. Plaintiffs inherited tenancy rights, as per mutation to the extent of half of the share of Ida, while respondent Teu inherited the other half share. Appellant's case was that on the strength of Will they had inherited the entire share of Ida in his tenancy holding.

(3.) LEARNED Counsel for the appellants -plaintiffs submits that since the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act had come into force, when Ida was alive, he automatically became the owner of the suit property, by virtue of the provision of Section 104(4) of the said Act. Submission is misconceived. Section 104(4) of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act very categorically says that vestment of proprietary rights, in a person cultivating the land as a tenant, has to take place on and with effect from the date notified by the government for the purpose in the Rajpatra. Government notified the date to be 3.10.1975 or say a date subsequent to the date of death of Ida. Therefore, the submission made by the learned Counsel for the appellants is contrary to the aforesaid provision of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act. Hence, no substantial question of law arises in the present appeal. The same is, therefore, dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand dismissed.