Non-occupancy tenancy is heritable under general law; prohibitory injunction cannot be granted against a co-owner.

The plaintiffs (respondents) filed a civil suit for a permanent prohibitory injunction to restrain the defendants (appellants) from interfering with their possession of land measuring 33-15 bighas.

The plaintiffs claimed ownership as successors of Bhagi Rath, who was conferred proprietary rights under the H.P. Abolition of Big Landed Estates and Land Reforms Act.

The defendants contested the suit, asserting that the land was originally held by Keshav Ram (grandfather of the parties) as a non-occupancy tenant.

Defendant No. 1, Tulsi Ram (son of Sadhu Ram, another son of Keshav Ram), claimed he inherited the tenancy rights equally with Bhagi Rath upon Keshav Ram’s death.

The Trial Court and the First Appellate Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, holding that non-occupancy tenancy was not heritable and that Bhagi Rath alone became the owner.

Section 17(1)(b) of the Registration Act, 1908, which mandates the registration of instruments that extinguish or create rights in immovable property, as established in Roshan Singh v. Zile Singh.

The court relied on the principle that non-occupancy tenancy is heritable under the general law of succession, specifically Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, as held in Charno Devi v. Dali Mal and Smt. Nathi v. Ned Chand.

The court followed the doctrine from Anathula Sudhakar v. P. Buchi Reddy regarding the maintainability of injunction suits.

Order 41 Rule 22 of the CPC, which allows a respondent to support a decree by challenging adverse findings without filing cross-objections.

The High Court found that the family settlement (Ex. DX) was inadmissible as it was unregistered and purported to sever ownership, thus violating the Registration Act.

However, the court determined that the lower courts committed a significant legal error by holding that non-occupancy tenancy is not heritable.

Applying the Hindu Succession Act, the court noted that since Keshav Ram was the original tenant, his rights devolved upon his heirs; Tulsi Ram (as the son of a predeceased son) was a Class I heir entitled to an equal share with Bhagi Rath.

Consequently, the conferment of proprietary rights on Bhagi Rath alone by the Compensation Officer was a corrigible error over which the Civil Court maintained jurisdiction.

Under Indian law, a permanent injunction cannot be granted to restrain one co-owner at the instance of another.

The court concluded that the lower courts misinterpreted the evidence and the law of succession.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgments and decrees of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court, and dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.