JUDGMENT : UMESH M. ADIGA, J. 1. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree dated 8 th December 2010, passed in R.A.No.3/2002, by the Presiding Officer, Fast Track Court, Udupi, (for short, `first Appellate Court'), confirming the judgment and decree dated 10 th December 2001, passed by the Addl.Civil Judge (Sr.Dn.), Udupi, (for short, `trial Court'), in O.S.No.115/1992, the defendants have filed the present appeal. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court. 3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 5. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that the parties are governed by Muslim Law; There is no question of joint family properties; defendant No.1 filed Form No.7, since she has continued the tenancy right over the suit property from the original owner and had been paying the rent to the original owner; The Land Tribunal considered these facts and granted occupancy rights in favour of defendant No.1, therefore, it was her absolute property; Both the Courts below while appreciating the evidence on record, wrongly held that all the sons and daughters of original propositus - Hassan Saheb are tenants-in-common; The said finding is erroneous. Therefore, the substantial question of law arises for consideration in this regard and the same is mentioned in the appeal memo, that may be framed and appeal be admitted to consider the same. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 5 contended that, as per Form No.7 filed by the appellant No.1, she herself has stated that her father-in-law obtained the lease from the original owner in the year 1930 and he continued the tenancy right till his death and thereafter, all his sons and daughters continued the tenancy rights; The appellant No.1 filed Form No.7 for and on behalf of members of the family; The Land Tribunal granted occupancy rights in the name of appellant No.1 for and on behalf of the family. It was the main issue before the trial Court and the trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, rejected the contention of appellant No.1. 6. The learned Appellate Judge confirmed the said findings. Therefore, no substantial question of law arise in this appeal for consideration. It was the main issue before the trial Court and the trial Court after appreciating the evidence on record, rejected the contention of appellant No.1. 6. The learned Appellate Judge confirmed the said findings. Therefore, no substantial question of law arise in this appeal for consideration. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that tenancy rights is heritable as per Section 24 of the Land Reforms Act, 1961 (for short, `L.R. Act'). Section 4 of the said Act also describes as to who are entitled to succeed to tenancy rights for the grant of occupancy rights. Therefore, even though the occupancy rights were granted in the name of appellant No.1, it ensures to the benefit of all the members of the family who are occupying and enjoying the fruits of the tenanted property. Therefore, no substantial question of law that arises in this appeal. Hence, prayed to dismiss the appeal. 7. The main crux of the matter is whether the subject matter of the suit is a property belonging to all the members of the family or is it the exclusive property belonging to the plaintiff. The trial Court has framed issue No.3 in this regard. While discussing the evidence on issue No.3, at page Nos.23 to27, at para Nos.14 to 18, the trial Court thoroughly discussed the above said issue and answered it against the defendants. 8. Being aggrieved by the said order of the trial Court, defendant Nos.1 to 11 preferred an appeal in R.A.No.3/2002. In the impugned judgment, it appears, the main ground of appeal was regarding acquisition of tenancy rights by defendant No.1. Point Nos.1 and 2 framed by the first Appellate Court is also regarding the right of members of family of the defendants over the suit lands. The first Appellate Court also reproduced the contents of Form No.7 and after re-appreciating the materials available on record, held that even though the land was granted in the name of a member of the family and if the tenancy rights were succeeded by sons and daughters, then all the sons and daughters were entitled for right over the suit property and then the grant of occupancy rights in the name of one of the member of the family will ensure the benefit to all the members of the family. 9. 9. Both the Courts below on appreciating and re-appreciating the materials available on record, have properly applied the law and facts and have held against the appellants, who are the defendants before the trial Court. Therefore, there is no substantial question of law that arises for consideration in this appeal. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.