LexGURDLT SINGH versus MST. ANGREZ KAUR ALIAS GEJ KAUR ALIAS MALAN AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A 8 c D E F G GURDlT SINGH v. MST. ANGREZ KAUR alias GEJ KAUR alias MALAN AND OTHERS April 25, 1967 [K. N. WANCHOO, C.J., V. BHARGAVA AND G. K. MITTER, JJ.J Custom-Divorce among lats of Jullundur District-Value of Ratti- gan' s Digest and Riwaj-i-Am in this regard-Custom in surrounding dis- tricts can be basis of determining existence of custom in Jullundur Dis- trict. S married A after the latter had been divorced by her husband T. The parties were Jats of Jullundur District in the Punjab. After the death of S a collateral of bis got l'he lands of S mutated in bis favour. A then filed a suit claiming the land as widow of S. Her marriage to S was challenged on the ground that there was no custom among the Jats of I ullundur District permitting a divorced woman to remarry in the life-time of her first husband. The entries in the Rattigan'• digest and the Riwaj-i-am of Jullundur District came up for consideration. HELD : Rattigan'• digest was 'not of help in arriving at a conclusion about the eitistence of such a custom of divorce among the J ats in Jullundur District. The Riwaj-i-Am of Jullundur District was unreliable as it had been so held by courts. [792 F-0; 795 A-C] On the basis of the existence of a custom of divorce amon11 the Jats of districts surrounding Jullundur District and on the baslS of oral evidence adduced in the case, the High Court rightly held that a custom of divorce existed among the Jats of Jullundur District, and the custom permits the divorced women to marry in the life-time of her first hus- band. The divorce of A by T being valid her subsequent marriage to S was also valid, and accordingly she was entitled to succeed to S's pro- perty. [797 B-C] Basant Singh v. Kunwar Brij Raj Saran Singh, 62 I.A. 180, Vaishnoo Dill v. Rame.rhri, ( 1928) L.R. 55 I.A. 407, Mahant S<e/ig Ram v. Musam- mat Maya Devi [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1191, Qamar-ud-din v. Mt. Fateh Bano, (1943) I.L.R. 26 Lab. 110, Muhammad Khalil v. Mohammad Baksh. A.l.R. (36) 1949 E. Pb. 252, Zakar Hussain v. Ghulam Fa·ima, A.I.R. (14) 1927 Lah. 261, Ghulam Mohammad v. Balli, A.I.R. (18) 1931 Lah. 641 and Ml. Fatima v. Sharaf Din, A.i.R. (33) 1946 Lah. 426, referred to. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 852 of 1964. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 24, 1962 of the Punjab High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 843 of 1956. If Bishan Narain and A. G. Ratnaparkhl, for the appellant. K. C. Nayyar and Mohan Behar/ Lal, for respondent No. 1. "ro'! : r ~, :7 • 790 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1967] 3 S.C.R. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, .J. This appeal has come up as a result of a dis- pute ·relating to succession to the property of one Sunder Singh. Sunder Singh, on 4th November, 1950, executed a will in respect of his property in favour of his niece, Udham Kaur. Subsequently, on 27th October, 1951, one Tarlok Singh executed a document divorcing his wife, Mst. Angrez Kaur, respondent No. 1 in this appeal, on the ground that she frequently went away from his house without his consent and whenever he made enquiries from her, she became furious with him. In the document, he recited that Mst. Angrez Kaur was no longer his wife and that she had gone to live with Sunder Singh. According to respondent No. 1 on this divorce being granted to her· by her first husband, Tarlok Singh, she was married· to Sunder Singh by a custom, known as 'Chadar Andazi'. On 7th June, 1952, Sunder Singh revoked his previous will and, in that document, acknowledged Mst. Ang' rez Kaur as his wife and left the property to her. Sunder Singh died in 1953. Thereafter, the appellant, Gurdit Singh, who was a collateral of Sunder Singh in the third degree, applied for mutation. On 12th December, 1954, mutation of the property left by Sunder Singh was sanctioned in favour of Gurdit Singh by the authorities. Thereupon, Mst. Angrez Kaur filed a suit on 17th March, 1955. claiming the property as widow of Sunder Singh. The trial Court decreed the suit, holding that respondent No. 1 had married Sunder Singh by 'Chadar Andazi' and the mar- riage was valid. On appeal, th~ Additional District Judge set aside the decree of the trial Court and held that the marriage of Mst. Angrez Kaur with Sunder Singh during the life-'time of her first husband, Tarlok Singh, was invalid and was not justified by any custom and, consequently, she could not
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.