RAM JATAN AND ORS.versusDY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

J_.

                           RAM JATAN AND ORS.                                       A
                                    v
                 DY. DIRECTOR OF CONSOLIDATION AND ORS.

                                   FEBRUARY 12, 1996

                  [K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.)                            B

              Tenancy Laws:

              Agra Tenancy Act :

             Sections 24,25-Succession to estat~S.24 applies only where the oc-
                                                                                    c
      cupancy tenant dies intestate-Deceased during his Zifetime bequeathed the
      property to his daughters' son under registered Wil~Accepted by Director of
/
      consolidation and upheld by High Cowt-Held, there is no illegality warrant-
      ing interference.
                                                                                    D
              CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3616 of
      1996.

           From the Judgment and Order dated 18.1.93 of the Allahabad High
      Court in C. Misc. W.P. No. 9233 of 1980.
                                                                                    E
              C.P. Pandey for the Appellants.

              Sunil Gupta and H.K. Puri for the Respondents.

              The following Order of the Court was delivered :
                                                                                    F
              Leave granted. Heard the counsel on both sides.

            The Director of the Consolidation recorded as a fact that Newaj Mal,
      the maternal grand-father of the respondent No. 2 had executed a
      registered Will bequeathing his property to the respondent. This fact was
      not disputed by the lower authorities. Thereby, the Director had set aside G
      the orders passed by the Consolidation Officer and the Settlement Officer,
      the appellate authority and had held that the respondent is entitled to be
      mutated in the records as an owner of the land in dispute. In writ petition,
      the High Court has upheld that finding. Thus it dismissed the Writ Petition
      No. 9233/80 by order dated January 18, 1993.                                 H
                                          455
    456                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [1996] 2 S.C.R.

A         It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that by
    virtue of Class IV of the order of succession given in Section 24 of the Agra
    Tenancy Act, the appellant being the brother of the deceased Newaj Mal,
    is entitled to prefrential succession to the respondent who comes under
    Class VI, viz., paughters' son. It is contended that the respondent was
    co-sharer during the life-time of the Newaj Mal; he was 18 years old at that
B   time and that, therefore, he can have a prefrential right to the appellant.

          Section 24 of the Agra Tenancy Act prescribes that when a male ex-
    proprietary tenant, occupancy tenant, statutory tenant or non-occupancy
    tenant dies, his interest in the holding shall devolve in accordance with the
c   order of succession given thereunder. Class V deals with brother being a
    son of the same father as the deceased and Class VI deals with the
    daughter's son. The proviso envisages that no such daughter's son or
    collateral relative shall be entitled to inherit, who did not share in the
    cultivation of the holding at the time of the tenant's death. In other words,
    Section 24 would apply where the occupancy tenant dies intestate and then
D   the order of succession devolves in the manner indicated thereunder.
    Under Class V a brother may be entitled to a preferential right over
    daughter's son. Class VI provided that the daughter's son was a co-sharer
    in the cultivation of the holding during the life time of the deceased.

E          Section 25 envisages succession of a female tenants. It is seen that
    after the death of Newaj Mal, his wife Lakshmi had succeeded to his estate
    and after her demise, the second respondent has come into possession. The
    second respondent is claiming succession to maternal grand mother. He
    also claims that he was in joint cultivation with his grand mother. It is
    unnecessary for us to go into that question. Suffice it to state that the
F   appellant is not entitled to avail Section 24 for the reason that the deceased
    during his life time had bequeathed the property to his daughter's son
    under the registered Will which was accepted by the Director and has been
    upheld by the High Court. Thus we find no illegality warranting inter-
    ference.
G
           The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs.

    G.N.                                                       Appeal dismissed.