Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

4. Learned counsel appearing for appellants and respondents 1 to 4 were heard.

5. The argument of learned counsel appearing for appellants was that Ext.A2 application filed by first respondent in O.S.1139/1984, when the case stood referred to the Land Tribunal under section 125(3) of Kerala Land Reforms Act, establish that respondents 1 to 4 were aware that appellants are also legal heirs of deceased Karthiayani and still when the present suit was filed, they were not impleaded and therefore the principle of substantial representation has no application to the present case and first appellate court should not have interfered with the findings of the executing court. It was argued that the contention raised in the previous suit evidenced by Ext.A1 was that on the death of Ayyappan the tenancy right devolved on Karthiayani and her children and respondents 5 to 8 have no right over the building and in O.S.471/1996 it was contended that respondents 5 to 9 are the tenants and the tenancy was terminated and defendants in that suit were not impleaded as legal heirs of deceased Karthiayani or representing the estate of Karthiayani and therefore the finding of first appellate court that 6th respondent substantially represent the estate of Karthiayani or appellants is incorrect and first appellate court should have confirmed the findings of executing court and should have found that the decree cannot be executed as against appellants. Reliance was placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Daya Ram v. Shyam Sundari (AIR 1965 SC 1049), N.K.Mohd.Sulaiman v. N.C.Mohd.Ismail Saheb (AIR 1966 SC 792).

"It is now well settled that on the death of the original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary either negativing or limiting the succession, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant. The incidence of the tenancy are the same as those enjoyed by the original tenant. It is a single tenancy which devolves on the heirs. There is no division of the premises or of the rent payable thereof.

The question that was considered was whether the tenancy is joint or separate. It was held that the former case notice on any one of the tenants is valid and a suit impleading one of them as defendant is maintainable and the decree in such a suit is binding on all the tenants. Following the earlier decision in Kanji Manji v. Trustees of the Port of Bombay (AIR 1963 SC 468) and H.C. Pandey's case (supra)it was held that on the death of original tenant, subject to any provision to the contrary either negativing or limiting the succession, the tenancy rights devolved on the heirs of the deceased tenant and it is a single tenancy which devolved on the heirs. It was further held that respondent in that case acted on behalf of the tenant and he paid rent on behalf of his father and accepted notice on behalf of all and in such circumstance, notice served under section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act on the respondent was sufficient and valid.

10. Division Bench of this Court in Mary's case (supra) following the said decision held:-

"It is evident from the above mentioned definition that on the death of original tenant, tenancy rights devolve on his heirs as joint tenants, unless there is a provision to the contrary either negativing or limiting the succession, the tenancy rights devolve on the heirs of the deceased tenant.