Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

21. I Consider that the section means that that order of succession is to apply whenever the question arises during the time that the Act is in force independently of the time of death. This Section 24 alone is sufficient to govern the succession, and the corresponding Section 22, Act II of 1901, Was sufficient during the period that Act was in force. The legislature however desired to deal with the case of female tenants who had themselves acquired the rights of occupancy tenants, etc., by twelve years' cultivation, and it provided for the succession to them in Section 25(2). To distinguish their case provision was made in Section 25(1) for female tenants 'who inherited an interest in a holding' from male tenants, and reference was made to Section 24. No doubt, to be complete, reference should have also been made to Section 22, Act II of 1901. There are some points of distinction to be noted between a widow on whom the interest of an occupancy tenant has devolved, who may be called A, and a woman who has acquired occupancy rights in a holding under Section 11, Act II of 1901, by twelve years, continuous cultivation, or on whom a right of occupancy has been conferred under Section 17, Act III of 1926, or who has otherwise acquired the right under Section 16, Act III of 1926, who may be called Rule (1) If A abandons or surrenders her interest to the zemindar, Section 25(1), Act III of 1926 provides that the interest devolves upon the nearest surviving heir of the last male tenant in accordance with the succession in Section 24: see also Section 108. But if B abandons or surrenders her interest in the holding, the occupancy tenancy will be extinguished under Section 35(1)(c) 2. If A and another widow of an occupancy tenant succeed him under Section 24, on the death of one widow the other widow takes the whole holding by survivorship under Section 26. But if B and her co-widow acquire occupancy rights for themselves, on the death of one widow her interest would devolve as provided in Section 25(2). 3. The interest of one occupancy tenant may be transferred to a person who was a co-tenant from the commencement of the tenancy, or who has become such by succession, or who has been recognised as such in writing by the landholder Section 23(2)(b). If B made such a release or transfer it would be valid for the benefit of the co-tenant. It is not provided that such a release or transfer by A would be different, but it appears that the principle of an abandonment or surrender by A should apply and the result should be that the interest would devolve on the nearest surviving heir of the last male tenant.

22. A loses her rights on re-marriage, B does not. 5. On the death of A, or remarriage, the descent is different in several points. The father of her deceased husband takes next. Bat he does not become the stock of descent, otherwise on his death his other sons would take as his male lineal descendants. Section 24 provides that the mother being a widow takes next, and then the brother, being a son of the same father, instead of 'this son taking immediately after his father. Then comes the daughter's son, who is succeeded by the nearest collateral male relative in the male line of descent, both of whom must have shared in the cultivation at the time of the original tenant's death. But on the death of B she is the stock of descent. Her male lineal descendants in the male line take first. If A had been widow with a family when she married the original tenant, her male lineal descendants by her former husband would not take at all. The next person who takes the interest of B is her husband, as in Section 24 he does not become a stock of descent. After him comes the daughter's son, provided that he shared in the cultivation at B's death. The father, the mother, the brother and the nearest collaterals are omitted, doubtless because they belong to the family of -Band would normally live in another village. 6. A belongs to a class which will continue to arise fairly frequently. But B belongs to a class which will die out, as there is no provision in Act 3 of 1926 corresponding to Section 11, Act 2 of 1901 by which a woman holding and cultivating for 12 years could acquire occupancy rights. The cases where a right of occupancy will be conferred on a woman under Section 17 will doubtless be extremely rare. When the existing female" occupancy tenants under Section 25(2) have died out, this class will practically become extinct. Female statutory tenants come in (3) Non-occupancy tenants are now a small class, as the great majority have become statutory tenants under Section 19. Ex-proprietary tenants, females, will no doubt occasionally arise, and they will be the sole survivors in Section 25(2). Many of the distinctions between A and B had' been made by judicial decisions under Act 2 of 1901. A point to be noted is the language of Section 25(1), Act 3 of 1926. Does it only apply to a female who has inherited since 'that Act came into force? If this were intended then it would begin: (1) When a female ex-proprietary occupancy or non-occupancy tenant on whom a interest in a holding has devolved under Section 24. This would be the correct construction in English to show that the words "under Section 24" are to be taken with the verb, and that the female is to succeed or inherit under Section 24. The word "devolve" is the word used in Section 24 and also in Section 25(2). But the word "devolve" has been changed to the transitive verb "inherit." The object of the change appears to be to separate the verb from the words "under Section 24" and the sub-section runs (1) When a female exproprietary occupancy or non-occupancy tenant who has inherited an interest in a holding under Section 24....

34. Again, the fact that under Sub-section (3), the heir to a female statutory tenant(who has not inherited an interest under Section 24) is not governed by Sub-section (1) but is governed by Sub-section (2) shows that even female tenants have been given higher rights. It has been argued that under Section 24, it is only an interest in the holding and not the holding itself which devolves on females. I see no force in this contention, because it is the interest in the holding alone which under Section 24 devolves on the male lineal descendants, the father, the brother, the daughter's son and the nearest collateral. The same expression is again used in Section 25. Thus both female and male heirs are spoken of as getting an interest in the holding. To my mind the use of the word "inherited" in Section 25, as compared to the word "devolve" is not of any peculiar significance. I feel considerable difficulty in saying that a female heir is not a tenant. She is expressly spoken of as an exproprietary, occupancy or non-occupancy tenant in the first two sub-sections of Section 25. According to the definition of tenant" in Section 3, Sub-section (6) a tenant is merely a person by whom rent is payable. There would be enormous difficulties in assuming that she is not an exproprietary, occupancy or non-occupancy tenant, but something else. In the first place Section 10 specifies only 7 classes of tenants for the purposes of this Act and the list is obviously exhaustive. No other category is, therefore, admissible. In the second place, most of the provisions of the Tenancy Act relating to recovery of arrears of rent, ejectment, enhancement of rent, etc., would be in terms inapplicable to female tenants, which could not possibly have been the intention of the legislature. I am, therefore, constrained to hold that Sub-section (1) is confined to only three classes of females mentioned above and no more. It follows that Sub-section (2) applies to all other female exproprietary, occupancy and non-occupancy tenants.

58. There would also be some violence to language in interpreting the expression "In the case of a widow of Class 2 in Section 24, remarries" occurring in Section 25, Clause (1). It would not be possible to interpret this as including the case of a widow who has inherited an interest similar to that in Section 24. The expression is a rigid one and it applies only to the specific case of a widow of Class. 2 in Section 24 remarrying. One other argument was advanced before me and it was to the effect that if Clause (2) of Section 25 were to apply also to the case of a widow having a life estate only, such as a widow who inherited under Section 22 of the previous Act, the (clause would not be effective, inasmuch as the clause provides that in the case of the death of such a person her interest in the holding shall devolve, and as her interest in the holding was only till death there is nothing which can devolve after her death: but practically the same words are used in Clause (1) which ex-hypothesi applies to the devolution of an interest of a life estate holder. The words there are "such interest shall devolve," and if we investigate as to what such interest is we find that the interest which she has inherited is only a life interest. No difference would be made by the saving clause notwithstanding anything contained in Section 35," for that safeguard applies possibly to surrender or abandonment only. I am, therefore, of the opinion that where a Hindu occupancy tenant died while the Tenancy Act of 1901 was in force and was succeeded by his widow and the widow died after the coming into force of the Tenancy Act of 1926, the succession would be governed by Sub-section 2 of the new Tenancy Act, and that the nearest collateral male relative in the male line of the descent who shared in the cultivation of the last male occupancy tenant at his death would not be entitled to succeed under Section 24 of Act 3 of 1926 or otherwise. For the reasons given above my answers to the various questions that have been referred to me for opinion are (1) The succession would be governed by Sub-section 2 of the new Tenancy Act.