' This revision petition has arisen out of a declaratory suit filed by the respondents against the petitioners. The dispute relates to the succession of Muhammad alias Haji Muhammad a deceased, an original tenant of a State land allotted by the Collector, under the Colonization of - Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, who had died somewhere in 1946, leaving behind sons and grandsons. The plaintiffs/respondents are the sons of Ghulam Hussain, the pre-deceased sons of the said original tenant while defendants/petitioners are the legal representatives of other two sons, namely Ahmad and Noor Ahmad who were alive at the time of the death of their father but died subsequently. The respondents brought a suit for declaration to the effect that they may be declared owners to the extent of 1/3rd share in the tenancy comprised of suit land as heirs of Muhammad alias Haji Muhammad a propositus. The suit was hotly contested by the present petitioners. The learned trial Court after recording evidence and hearing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the parties decreed the plaintiff's suit vide judgment and decree dated 30-7-1978. The present petitioners having felt aggrieved therefrom, appealed against that decree of the trial Court and the learned Additional District Judge while .Dismissing the appeal, maintained and affirmed the decree under appeal with no order as to costs vide judgment dated 9-10-1979.
The petitioner have assailed the correctness, legality and propriety of the judgments and decrees of the learned Courts below in revision petition before this Court.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at length and meticulously examined the impugned judgments. The only question which calls for adjudication in this revision petition is whether the learned Courts below rightly held that the succession was to be governed under section 20 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and the respondents being the grandsons of the original tenant were eligible to inherit a share to the extent of 1/3rd as representatives of their deceased father, Ghulam Hussain. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently contended that as Ghulam Hussain was the predeceased son of the original deceased tenant therefore, the present respondents being the sons of predeceased son were not entitled to receive any share in legacy in question in the presence of Ahmad and Noor Ahmad on the basis 'of principle that the nearer in degree shall exclude the more remote. He further contended that for a proper interpretation of section 20 of the aforesaid Act, the learned Courts below should have pressed into service the Doctrine of Exclusion as propounded by Muslim Personal Law as the parties being Muslims, were governed by Muslim Personal Law and the 'devolution of tenancy on the male lineal descendants was in any case subject Jo personal law. I am afraid this contention raised above has no legs to stand upon for the reason that section 20 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, is a self-contained law of succession regarding original tenancy and does not require the help of Personal Law for its interpretation and enforcement. According to section 20(1) of Act No, 5 of 1912, in case of death of any original tenant as defined in that Act, the succession to the tenancy shall devolve in the following order upon- "(a) the male lineal descendants of the tenant in the male line of descent. (The term lineal descendant's shall include an adopted son whose adoption has been ratified by a registered deed)."
' The word 'Original' was inserted by an amendment in 1920. It appears that the concept of mode of succession enacted in section 20 of the Act has been borrowed from the systematised Customary Law of the province according to which on the death of a proprietor, his holding would devolve on all his sons, usually in equal shares, on the pre-deceased of one or more of them, the grandsons would take per strips, each set receiving the share which would have gone to the son bad he outlived his father on the basis of Doctrine of representation. It is very pertinent to note that the original idea of distinguishing between the periods before and after the accrual of occupancy rights was dropped in favour of distinguishing between succession of original tenants and succession to tenants who had themselves, directly or indirectly, succeeded the original tenant acquiring otherwise than by succession. Therefore, section 20 of the Act deals with succession to tenants acquiring otherwise than by succession while section 21 applies to succession to tenants acquiring by succession. Therefore, the succession was restricted in the case of succession to an original tenant to a narrow circle of near relations or connections. i. e. Male lineal descendants in the male line descent with a view to make clarity regarding the exclusion of daughter's sons.
3. On the basis of the discussion made above. I find myself in perfect agreement with the conclusion concurrently drawn by the learned Courts below that the respondents who are admittedly the sons of the predeceased son of the original tenant being male lineal descendant in the male line of descent, were entitled to inherit the original tenancy left by their grandfather along with his living sons, as the representative- of their deceased father.
4. Being confronted with this legal situation, the learned counsel for the petitioner began to argue that the attestation of mutation regarding original tenancy entered in favour of living sons excluding the present respondents was within the exclusive jurisdiction of the authorities appointed under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and therefore, the civil Courts had no jurisdiction to interfere with the matter in dispute under section 36 of the Act which ousted the jurisdiction of the Civil Courts. I am afraid this contention has no force. Manifestly, the attestation of mutation regarding original tenancy in dispute was absolutely in conflict with the mode of succession enacted in section 20 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and as such was not within the for corners of that Act. It is now well-settled principle of law that every authority is subject to the corrective process of the civil Court. The learned Courts below have rightly exercised their jurisdiction by correcting the violation of mandatory provisions of law contained in section 20 of the Act.
5. The upshot of the above discussion is that the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below are based upon correct appraisal of law and fact on the subject and it is not justifiable for me to interfere with the same while invoking revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of Code of Civil Procedure. That being so, I find no merit in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed in limine.