Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

19. In Raghupat v. Sanman ('36) 1936 R.D. 369, the Board of Revenue held that one cosharer cannot, in the absence of proof of formal division, mortgage with possession certain plots recorded as joint sir on the mere allegation that he and his cosharers have divided up the sir among themselves; and if he does so, the mortgagee in possession should be regarded as in possession with the licence of the cosharers and as a tenant of the sir as a whole. Mutation cannot be effected in his favour. In that case a private division of sir was alleged, but the learned members held that it was indistinguishable from a temporary arrangement made for the sake of convenience by which cosharers actually cultivated separately certain plots of common sir.

38. It is common ground that plots recorded as sir in this particular village have been so recorded ever since the last record of rights framed before 1st January 1902 and have been continuously so recorded ever since. Under Section 7 sir shall cease to be sir (a) when it becomes the subject of an ex-proprietary tenancy, (b) when a right of occupancy is conferred therein under Section 17 and, from the facts of this case, it would appear that neither the first nor the second contingency has arisen. Section 6 provides that sir right is not transferable except (a) by gift of the sir to a person to whom the proprietary interest in the sir is gifted, or (b) by exchange of sir between cosharers in the mahal.