ALKA SARIN, J.

1. The present regular second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiff-appellants against the judgments and decrees passed by both the Courts below dismissing their suit for declaration and possession with consequential relief of permanent injunction.

2. Brief facts relevant to the present /is are that one Chetu had two sons - Antu Ram and Kura. Antu Ram was married to Smt. Punni and they had a daughter, Mangli (the original plaintiff). Smt. Punni died on 27.11.1941 and Antu Ram married Smt. Ram Piari. Antu Ram died on 30.10.1945 and thereafter his widow, Smt. Ram Piari married Antu Ram’s brother, Kura. Kura and Smt. Ram Piari had a son, Jagmal (the defendant). After the death of Antu Ram the mutation of inheritance of Marushi rights was sanctioned in favour of his second wife, Smt. Ram Piari, alone and after the death of Smt. Ram Piari on 18.11.1949 the mutation of her inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Kura Ram as she had married him after the death of Antu Ram. After the death of Kura Ram the mutation of his inheritance was sanctioned in favour of his son, Jagmal (the defendant). Accordingly, the present suit was filed praying that Mangli (the original plaintiff) be declared owner to the extent of 1/4th share in the suit land and for possession of the same and for restraining the defendant from alienating or from changing the nature of the suit land.

3. The suit was contested by the defendant-respondent averring that Smt. Punni was carrying a child of her previous husband in her womb when she married Antu Ram and that a daughter was born to her two months after the marriage and that the marriage of that daughter was also performed by Kura Ram but she died about a year after her marriage. Accordingly, it was pleaded that Mangli (the original plaintiff) has no concern whatsoever with Antu Ram and Smt. Punni and that it was wrong that Smt. Punni was the real mother or mother of Mangli (the original plaintiff). It was further pleaded that even if Mangli (the original plaintiff) is proved to be the daughter of Antu Ram, she had no right to inherit the occupancy rights and that mutation of inheritance was correctly sanctioned firstly in favour of Smt. Ram Piari and after her death in favour of Kura Ram being a collateral of Antu Ram. By way of additional pleas it was pleaded that as per the custom of agricultural tribes of Punjab and Haryana, a female had only life interest in the ancestral or non-ancestral property of the deceased and the daughters were excluded and, therefore, Mangli (the original plaintiff) had no right to succeed to inherit the property of Antu Ram.

4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the Trial Court on 05.01.2011 :

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of declaration as prayed for OPP

2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled for the relief of permanent injunction as prayed for OPP

3. Whether the suit is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties OPD

4. Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit > OPD

5. Whether the suit is not maintainable OPD

6. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit OPD

7. Relief.

5. During pendency of the suit Mangli (the original plaintiff) died on 29.06.2012 and her legal heirs were brought on record, who are the present plaintiff-appellants.

6. The Trial Court, vide judgment and decree dated 21.11.2012, dismissed the suit of the plaintiff-appellants holding that even if it was proved that Mangli was the daughter of Antu Ram even then as per Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 she was unable to inherit the rights after the commencement of the Punjab Occupancy Tenants (Vesting of Proprietary Rights) Act, 1952 and that these rights had been converted in ownership after the death of Antu Ram and Smt. Ram Piari and the defendant-respondent being the son of Kura Ram inherited the occupancy rights being a male lineal descendant. Aggrieved by the said judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court, an appeal was preferred by the plaintiffappellants which also met with the same fate vide judgment and decree dated 07.09.2016. Hence, the present regular second appeal. The crossobjections filed by the defendant-respondent challenging the finding qua the parentage of Mangli (the original plaintiff) were also dismissed by the lower Appellate Court.

7. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has contended that the Courts below have erred in non-suiting them on the basis of Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 which was not at all applicable. According to counsel, the estate of Antu Ram, after his death, ought to devolve upon his daughter Mangli (the original plaintiff) and the widow Smt. Ram Piari and after the death of Smt. Ram Piari even her share ought to devolve upon Mangli (the original plaintiff) alone. It was argued that since it stood proved that Mangli (the original plaintiff) was the daughter of Antu Ram his estate should come to her after Antu Ram’s death.

8. I have heard counsel for the plaintiff-appellants and perused the record.

9. It would be relevant to reproduce Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 which reads as under :

“59. Succession to right of occupancy - (1) When a tenant having a right of occupancy in any land dies, the right shall devolve -

(a) on his male lineal descendants, if any, in the male line of descent, and

(b) failing such descendants, on his widow, if any, until she dies or remarries or abandons the land or is under the provisions of this Act ejected therefrom, and

(c) failing such descendants and widow, on his widowed mother, if any, until she dies or remarries or abandons the land or is under the provisions of this Act ejected therefrom.

(da) failing such descendants and widow, or widowed mother or if the deceased tenant left a widow or widowed mother, then when her interest terminates under clause (b) or (c) of this sub-section, on his male collateral relatives in the male line on descent from the common ancestor of the deceased tenant and those relatives.

Provided, with respect to clause (d) of this sub-section, that the common ancestor occupied the land.

Explanation - For the purpose of clause (d), land obtained in exchange by the deceased tenant or any of his predecessors-in-interest in pursuance of the provisions of sub-section (1) of Section 58-A shall be deemed to have been occupied by the common ancestor if the land given for it in exchange was occupied by him. (2) As among descendants and collateral relatives claiming under sub-section (1) the right shall, subject to the provisions of that sub-section, devolve as if it were land left by the deceased in the village in which the land subject to the right is situate.

(3) When the widow of a deceased tenant succeeds to a right of occupancy, she shall not transfer the right by sale, gift or mortgage or by sublease for a term exceeding one year.

(4) If the deceased tenant has left no such persons as are mentioned in sub-section (1) on whom, his right of occupancy may devolve under that sub-section, the right shall be extinguished.”

10. Thus, as per Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 the right of occupancy of a tenant devolves firstly upon his male lineal descendants, if any, in the male line of descent.

11. In the present case Kura Ram was the male lineal descendant of Antu Ram and entitled to succeed to his occupancy rights upon Antu Ram’s death. In the presence of Kura Ram, neither the widow of Antu Ram nor his daughter would be entitled to succeed to the occupancy rights of Antu Ram. Mangli (the original plaintiff) being the daughter of Antu Ram was incapable of inheriting the occupancy rights qua the suit land in the wake of Section 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887. As per the said provision, the succession of occupancy rights is strictly to the male lineal descendants only and certainly a daughter is not an heir to such occupancy rights. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants has simply reiterated the submissions that were advanced before the Courts below and which submissions were rejected after due and comprehensive consideration.

12. No question of law, much less, any substantial question of law arises in the present case. Both the Courts below have recorded concurrent findings of fact warranting no interference by this Court.

13. In view of the above, I do not find any illegality and infirmity in the judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off.

14. Dismissed.