Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. I agree in holding that the plaintiff could not in any event claim more than the one fourth share which belonged to the deceased Sobhanadhri. I am, however, of opinion that, when a' tenant is ejected, he loses his rights in the holding whether his interests cover only a part of the holding or entirety of the holding, especially when the order of ejectment has been carried out by a process in execution in which the Court Officer has necessarily to take the property into his custody and put it in the possession of the decree holder. If a mere attachment of the interests of a joint tenant could sever the joint tenancy, I think the act of a Court officer in taking possession of a joint tenant's interests and handing over such possession to the decree holder must also sever the joint tenancy. I am of opinion that the courts should always lean against the continuance of joint tenancies and against claims of survivorship. The ancient Hindu Law knew, according to that learned writer, Mr. J.C. Ghose, no such principle as joint tenancy and no principle of survivorship, which principles were introduced by the Mitakshara, the writer of which commentary gave an anamolous right by birth to sons in the ancestral properties of their father. Equity also does not favour joint tenancies and rights of survivorship. If a joint tenant can, by alienating his share, put an end to the tenancy, I do not see any adequate reason why he should not, by allowing the landlord to eject him so far as his interest is concerned, also put an end to the joint tenancy. As regards the case in para 168 of Freeman on Co-tenancy with due respect to the court which decided it, I do not feel myself impressed by the ingenuous arguments advanced therein. If a joint tenancy and the right of survivorship could be destroyed by proceedings in "fine and recovery" as stated in para 33 of the same book, I do not see why a consent decree by which the co-tenant allows his landlord to get an order for ejectment against him should not also put an end to the co-tenancy. Even a judgment declaring the title of a third person in the holding as against a co-tenant has, in my opinion, the same effect as the transfer of any title which might have existed in the latter in favour of the decree holder and must therefore sever the joint tenancy. I think the case of Sundar Lal v. Chhitar Mal (1905) I.L.R. 29 A. 215 clearly lays down that if the right of one co-tenant is extinguished in favour of a 3rd person and cannot be set up (by reason of a decision of a com t of Justice) as against that 3rd person that event severs the joint tenancy and the other co-tenants cannot claim to recover the share of the co-tenant whose right has been so destroyed either by setting up a right of survivorship or by alleging that the co-tenancy itself has not been destroyed, or by alleging that the judgment, which extinguished the rights of their co-tenant did not make the parson in whose favour such right was extinguished a tenant in common along with them. However on the other grounds mentioned by my learned brother in his judgment, I hold that this is not a fit case for giving a decree for joint possession to the plaintiff along with defendants 1 and 2. I therefore agree in dismissing the second appeal with costs.