This is an application in revision against an order of the learned Divisional Commissioner, Bikaner dated 14.9.56. In order to appreciate the nature of the dispute the following genealogical table accepted by both the parties may be reproduced below:— Mohanlal Chunilal Kaluram Chetan(Died in 1988) Gangaram(Died in 2004) Kaniram(Opposite party) Sohanlal(Mst. Devi, widow) Surja(Died) Baluram(Applicant) 2. The facts of the case in brief appear to be that Mohanlal an occupancy tenant of 134 Bighas in his life time separated his son Chunilal by giving him 43 Bighas and retaining the remaining 91 Bighas for himself and his three sons Gangaram, Kaluram and Chetan. They remained respectively in possession of their separate holdings After the death of Mohan Lal the Khata was mutated in the joint tenancy of his three sons. Chetan died without leaving a mile issue Kanhiram the opposite party whose father had also died in the meantime did not contest his claim to the Khata of Chetan and the whole of the Khata was mutated jointly in the name of Kaluram and Gangaram the two surviving brothers of the deceased Chetan. On Kalurams death his share in the Khata was recorded in the name of his two surviving sons Sohanlal and Kaluram along with Gangaram, the third one viz. Surja having predeceased his father. Later on Gangaram also died without leaving a male issue in Svt 2004 and Sohanlal too died leaving his widow Mst Devi. On an application of Kanhiram; the Naib Tehsilder mutated the Khata of the land measuring 91 bighas jointly held by the deceased Gangaram along with the applicant, in three portions viz. Mst Devi 34 bighas, Baluram 34 bighas and Kanhiram 23 bighas. This was resented to by both Baluram and Mst. Devi. An application was filed before the S.D.O. for correction of the entries in the revenue records. The opposite party in his written statement repelled these averment. He however admitted that he had voluntarily relinquished his claim to the share of Chetan on his death. After framing necessary issues and recording the evidence of the parties the S.D.O. allowed the application and ordered that the whole of 91 bighas be recorded in the name of Mst. Devi and Baluram to the exclusion of Kanhiram. In appeal however the Addl. Collector took a different view in the matter and held that the opposite party was entitled to succeed along with Mst. Devi and Baluram to the exclusion of Kanhiram. In appeal however the Addl. Collector took a different view in the matter and held that the opposite party was entitled to succeed along with Mst. Devi and Baluram to the share of Gangaram. The decision of the S.D.O. was set aside and the order given by the Naib Tehsildar was confirmed. A second appeal was filed by the applicant before the learned Commissioner but without any success. The case is now in revision before us. 3 Shri Pannalal counsel for the applicant urged that as Mohanlal the common ancestor of the parties had separated one of his sons Chunilal, the father of the opposite party during his life-time, and had also given him a separate share in the holding measuring 43 bighas, the opposite party ceased to be a member of the joint family and could not therefore claim a moiety in the joint tenancy held by the applicant and the deceased either by succession or survivorship. Shri Swami the counsel for the opposite party however urged that the property in question being an ancestral one the opposite party who was a male lineal descendant of the deceased Gangaram was entitled to succeed to his share along with the applicant under sec. 94 of the Bikaner Tenancy Act. We have read sec. 94 of the Bikaner Tenancy Act relating to succession to tenancies which is in a large measure a reproduction of sec. 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. 94 of the Bikaner Tenancy Act. We have read sec. 94 of the Bikaner Tenancy Act relating to succession to tenancies which is in a large measure a reproduction of sec. 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. It may with advantage be reproduced below: — Sec. 94 (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 decent, 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, and (d) failing such descendants and widow or widowed mother of 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 relative in the male line of descent from the common ancestor of the deceased tenant and those relatives. Provided with respect of clause (d) of this sub-section that the common ancestor occupied the land. (2) As among descendants and collateral relatives claiming under sub-sec. (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 the right of occupancy she shall not transfer the right by sale, gift or mortgage or by sub-lease for a term exceeding one year. (4) If the deceased tenant has left no such persons as are mentioned in sub-sec. (1) on whom his right of occupancy may devolve under that sub-sec. the right shall be extinguished. 4. The only point for determination in this case is whether inspite of the separation of Chunnilal, the father of the opposite party who was admittedly recorded as a separate tenant of 43 bighas of land he had still any claim to succeed to the joint tenancy in respect of the remaining land held by the deceased and the applicant within the meaning of sec. 94 of the Bikaner Tenancy Act. Sec. 94 contemplates succession to tenancies. 94 of the Bikaner Tenancy Act. Sec. 94 contemplates succession to tenancies. Gangaram the deceased was only a co-tenant in the joint tenancy and his death does not mean the death of a tenant. It is admitted by both the counsels that after the aforesaid separation, the three brothers, viz. Kaluram, Chetan arid Gangaram remained as joint occupancy tenants and their names were recorded as such. There is therefore no devolution which brings sec. 94 of Bikaner Tenancy Act into play. His share in the joint tenancy must go automatically by survivorship to the other co-tenants, viz. the applicants. In a similar case 1926 R.D. Vol. X page 27 Chaturi Ahir vs. Jhina Ahir, it was held that "where occupancy belonging to a Hindu father devolving upon his four sons, one of the whom separates and other three remain joint the separated brother has no right to succeed on the death of any of his three brothers who remain joint. Again in 1934 R.D. page 76 it was held that "where the plaintiffs father had separated off and been decree one third in the ancestral holding leaving his other two brothers joint tenants, he has no further claim in the un-separa-ted share of the other brothers whose heirs will divide the un-separated share between them and the plaintiffs are not entitled to share in the un-separated share of the two brothers of their father on the death of any one of them. In A.I.R. 1930 Lahore 375 (F.B.) a case under sec. 59 of the Punjab Tenancy Act which is analogous to the provision of Sec. 94 of the Bikaner Tenancy, Act, Tekchand J. who delivered the full Bench Judgment observed" it seems to me that this rule of survivorship is equally applicable to an occupancy tenure where there is unity of tenancy with plurality of parties possessing well defined shares. In the case of such an occupancy tenancy the share of the deceased tenant will first go to his own heirs and on his line becoming extinct, it will pass to the surviving co-tenant. "In the instant case it is clear beyond doubt that both the parties were separate occupancy tenants, the applicant held being a joint occupancy tenant with the deceased while the opposite party held his share as a separate independent occupancy tenant. "In the instant case it is clear beyond doubt that both the parties were separate occupancy tenants, the applicant held being a joint occupancy tenant with the deceased while the opposite party held his share as a separate independent occupancy tenant. The rule of survivorship therefore must govern the devolution of tenancy rights on the death of one of the co-tenants. The applicant who was admittedly a co-tenant of Gangaram, is therefore entitled to get bis share on his issueless death. The learned Commissioner in our opinion did not appreciate the correct position of law. He acted illegally and with material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction by applying the provisions of sec. 94 of the Bikaner Tenancy Act, which in fact for reasons stated above was not applicable to the facts of the case. Accordingly we allow this application, set aside the order of the learned Commissioner and direct that the share of the deceased Gangaram be mutated in the name of the applicant and Mst. Devi and the claim of the opposite party be rejected.