JUDGMENT : By way of instant Regular Second Appeal, appellants have assailed judgment and decree dated 09.11.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 44/2006 whereby the judgment and decree dated 31.05.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Lahaul-Spiti at Kullu, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 58 of 2003 was affirmed. 2. The parties hereinafter shall be referred to by the same status as held by them before the learned trial Court. Appellants were the plaintiffs and respondents were defendants before the learned trial Court. 3. Chhapu son of Devi Ram was tenant at Will in respect of the land comprised in Khata/Khatauni No. 1284/1, 2090/1, Khasra Nos. 3494, 3513 and 3534 measuring 4-9-0 bighas, situated in Phati Nathan, Kothi Nagar, Tehsil and District Kullu, H.P. (hereinafter referred to as the ‘suit land’) under the landowners S/Sh. Hari Prakash and Davinder Parkash. Chhapu died in the year 1960. The rights held by Chhapu in the suit land were inherited by his mother Smt. Lahauli and his wife Smt. Johami in equal shares. Smt. Johami remarried on 27.1.1965. 4. Plaintiffs claimed that the rights inherited by Smt. Lahauli and Smt. Johami were limited till their lives or remarriage. On such premise, Johami was alleged to have lost her rights in suit land on her remarriage and further Smt. Lahauli was stated to have acquired exclusive ownership of the suit land under the provisions of Himachal Pradesh Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972. Plaintiffs claimed right to the suit land on the basis of Will dated 26.10.1994 executed by Smt. Lahauli in their favour. Smt. Lahauli died on 29.10.1994. 5. Smt. Johami sold her share in the suit land to defendant No.1 vide sale deed dated 30.01.2003. Plaintiffs alleged the said sale deed to be illegal and without title and claimed the ownership over the entire suit land to the exclusion of Smt. Johami or her successors-in-interest in the suit land. In alternative, plaintiffs claimed ouster of Smt. Johami and her successors-in-interest from the suit land and claimed title over her share by way of adverse possession. 6. In alternative, plaintiffs claimed ouster of Smt. Johami and her successors-in-interest from the suit land and claimed title over her share by way of adverse possession. 6. Defendant No.1 by way of written statement raised preliminary objections to the effect that he was bonafide purchaser, the suit was beyond limitation since defendant No.1 was in possession of the share of Smt. Johami, the suit for declaration without relief of possession was not maintainable, suit was bad for non-joinder of necessary parties and estoppel etc. On merits, it was submitted that defendant No.1 had purchased the land from Smt. Johami for sale consideration of Rs.1,35,000/- and the sale was absolutely legal and valid as Smt. Johami had subsisting right to transfer her share. It was also submitted that Chhapu was tenant at Will and after his death, his mother Smt. Lahauli and wife Smt. Johami inherited the rights as tenants at Will absolutely. It was further asserted that Smt. Johami was in possession of her share in the suit land and the same was delivered to defendant No.1. 7. Defendant No.2 also contested the suit. It was submitted that Smt. Lahauli and Smt. Johami were tenants at Will in respect of suit land after the death of Chhapu, who had died on 19.10.1960. After coming into force of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, both Smt. Lahauli and Smt. Johami acquired proprietary rights under Section 104 of the Act ibid. The Will executed by Smt. Lahauli was challenged. Defendant No.2 asserted her possession on the suit land. It was also specifically averred that landlords had moved an application for resumption of the tenancy land including the suit land. The proceedings were contested by Smt. Lahauli and Smt. Johami before the Land Reforms Officer, Kullu. The suit land, as such, was allotted to Smt. Lahauli and Smt. Johami. It was specifically pleaded that Smt. Lahauli had re-married after the death of her pre-deceased son Chhapu. 8. On the basis of pleadings of the parties, learned trial Court had framed the following issues: 1. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the prohibitory injunction as prayed for ?OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession of the disputed land as claimed? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the declaration prayed for? OPP 2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the prohibitory injunction as prayed for ?OPP. 3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a decree for possession of the disputed land as claimed? OPP. 4. Whether the plaintiffs have become the owners of the suit land by way of the adverse possession of the disputed land as claimed? OPP. 5. Whether late Smt. Lahauli executed a valid will dated 26.10.1994 in favour of the plaintiffs as alleged. If so, its effect? OPP. 6. Whether the sale deed dated 30.01.2003 is wrong and illegal as alleged? OPP. 7. Whether the plaintiffs have a cause of action? OPP. 8. Whether defendant No.1 is a bonafide purchaser for consideration as alleged. If so, its effect? OPD. 9. Whether the suit is not maintainable in the present form? OPD. 10. Whether the suit is time barred? OPD. 11. Whether the suit is bad because of non-joinder of the necessary parties? OPD. 12. Whether the plaintiffs have not come to the Court with clean hands as alleged. If so, its effects? OPD. 13. Whether the plaintiffs have the locus-standi to sue? OPP 14. Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing the present suit by their act and conduct? OPD 15. Whether the suit has not been properly valued for the purposes of Court fee and jurisdiction? OPD 16. Relief. Issues No. 1 to 4, 6 and 7, 9 to 12 and 15 were answered in negative, issue No. 5, 13 and 14 were answered in affirmative, whereas issue No. 8 was held to be redundant. The suit of the plaintiffs was accordingly dismissed. It was held that Chhapu was non-occupancy tenant and after his death his tenancy rights were inherited by Smt. Lahauli and Smt. Johami. The marriage of Smt. Johami on 27.01.1965 did not make any difference in her rights as the inheritance in respect of non-occupancy tenancy at the relevant time was governed under the Hindu Succession Act. Reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in Nathi vs. Neel Chand reported in 1997 (2) Sim. L.C. 179. 9. Plaintiffs assailed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court by filing appeal under Section 96 of CPC before the learned Appellate Court, but again remained unsuccessful, hence the present appeal. 10. Reliance was placed upon the judgment passed by this Court in Nathi vs. Neel Chand reported in 1997 (2) Sim. L.C. 179. 9. Plaintiffs assailed the judgment and decree passed by learned trial Court by filing appeal under Section 96 of CPC before the learned Appellate Court, but again remained unsuccessful, hence the present appeal. 10. Learned lower Appellate Court also affirmed the findings of facts recorded by learned trial Court and by placing reliance upon the judgment passed in Nathi (supra), the appeal of plaintiffs was held to be without merit. 11. The instant appeal was admitted on 02.04.2008 on the following substantial questions of law: 1. Whether on a proper construction of provision of Punjab Tenancy Act, widow and non-occupancy tenant on remarriage lost her right of tenancy? 2. Whether on the evidence on record and the pleadings of the parties and assumption drawn from the documents Ext. P-2/D-5, Ext.D-2, Ext. D-3, Ext.D-4, Ext.D-6, Ext. D-7 and Ext.D-8 and the presumption of truth attached thereto stood rebutted in view of the admitted remarriage of Jomi with Chatru? 3. Whether on the proper construction of the provisions of the Punjab Tenancy Act and H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, it could be held that Jomi could be continued as tenant even after remarriage and become owner thereof under the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act and the order Ext. DA is binding on the appellant? 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records of the case carefully. 13. Both the learned Courts below have concurrently held that Chhapu was a tenant at Will in the suit land. After death of Chhapu on 19.10.1960, his rights in the suit land were inherited by his mother Smt. Lahauli and wife Smt. Johami in equal shares. Smt. Johami remarried on 27.01.1965. On coming into force of H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, the proprietary rights were conferred upon Smt. Lahauli and Smt. Johami to the extent of their respective shares. Smt. Lahauli had executed a Will Ext. PW-2/A on 26.10.1994. She died on 29.10.1994. Smt. Lahauli had bequeathed her share in the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. Smt. Johami sold her share in the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 on 20.3.2003 through registered sale deed for sale consideration of Rs.1,35,000/-. Smt. Lahauli had executed a Will Ext. PW-2/A on 26.10.1994. She died on 29.10.1994. Smt. Lahauli had bequeathed her share in the suit land in favour of the plaintiffs. Smt. Johami sold her share in the suit land in favour of defendant No.1 on 20.3.2003 through registered sale deed for sale consideration of Rs.1,35,000/-. The finding of facts recorded by learned Courts below need no interference as they are borne out from the evidence on record. 14. Admittedly, the area where the suit land is situate was part of erstwhile State of Punjab prior to coming into force of the Punjab Re-organization Act, 1966 and Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 (for short ‘Act’) was applicable to such area. 15. In the Act, there was no specific provision for inheritance of non-occupancy tenancy, whereas the inheritance in respect of occupancy tenancy was governed by Section 59 thereof. Section 59 of the Act, restricted the right of inheritance of widow or widowed mother till her life or till she remarried or abandoned the land. No such provision was available for tenancy at Will or non-occupancy tenancies. 16. It is more than settled that in absence of contrary provisions in special law, the general law prevails. Thus, in absence of any specific provision of inheritance in respect of tenancy at Will or non-occupancy tenancy in the Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, the Hindu Succession Act would apply and under said Act, the estate was inherited absolutely. In such view of the matter, Smt. Johami had inherited the right in respect of suit land absolutely and her re-marriage in no manner could restrict such right. Smt. Johami, thus, continued to be tenant at Will alongwith Smt. Lahauli in the suit land and on coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, acquired proprietary rights therein to the extent of her share. The sale made by her in favour of defendant No.1 in 2003 was a legal and valid transfer. 17. The plea of adverse possession has also been rightly declined by both the Courts below as the same was not proved on record in accordance with law. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Section 8 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was applicable and as such Smt. Johami had no right in the suit land after her re-marriage in 1965. The contention so raised deserves to be rejected. 18. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that Section 8 of the Punjab Security of Land Tenures Act, 1953 was applicable and as such Smt. Johami had no right in the suit land after her re-marriage in 1965. The contention so raised deserves to be rejected. Section 8 of the Act ibid read as under: “Continuity of tenancies. The continuity of tenancy shall not be affected by – (a) the death of the landlord, or (b) the death of the tenant, except when the tenant leaves no male lineal descendants or mother or widow, and (c) any change therein under the same landowner: and for the purpose of sections 17 and 18 of this Act, such tenancy shall be the last area so held.” 19. The plain reading of aforesaid provision reveals that it did not have relevance with inheritance but was meant to deal with continuity of tenancies. 20. Both the Courts below while dismissing the suit of the plaintiffs, had rightly relied upon the judgment in Nathi (supra) as the facts situation therein was the same as involved in the instant case. While dealing with the same fact situation, it was held as under: - “34. Admittedly, save and except section 59, Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887 there is no other provision in the said Act governing succession to the tenancy rights of a tenant-at-will. In the absence of such a provision in the relevant tenancy laws as in force at the relevant time, succession to the tenancy rights of a tenant at will prior to the coming into force of the H.P. Tenancy and Land Reforms Act, 1972, in the areas to which the provisions of Punjab Tenancy Act, 1887, were applicable, would, therefore, be governed by the general law of succession, viz, Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Under section 8 of the said Act widow and son(s) succeed to the estate of the deceased in equal shares.” 21. It also becomes evident from the record that Smt. Lahauli had also remarried. In the document Ext. PW-2/A i.e. the Will executed by Smt. Lahauli, she was described as widow of late Sh. Ottu S/o Chenu, whereas, she had inherited the tenancy rights in the suit land to the extent of her share being mother of Chhapu, who was son of Devi Ram. Meaning thereby that Smt. Lahauli was earlier wife of Sh. Devi Ram, but later re-married Sh. Ottu. Ottu S/o Chenu, whereas, she had inherited the tenancy rights in the suit land to the extent of her share being mother of Chhapu, who was son of Devi Ram. Meaning thereby that Smt. Lahauli was earlier wife of Sh. Devi Ram, but later re-married Sh. Ottu. It being so, she otherwise could not have raised the plea of limited rights of succession in the suit property against defendant No.2 Smt. Johami. 22. Resultantly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2006 passed by learned District Judge, Kullu, District Kullu, H.P. in Civil Appeal No. 44/2006 affirming judgment and decree dated 31.05.2006 passed by learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Lahaul-Spiti at Kullu, H.P. in Civil Suit No. 58 of 2003, is further affirmed. Appeal is accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms, so also the pending applications, if any.