LexJAI KAUR & OTHERS versus SHER SINGH & OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
....,.... ,._~ -._, 3 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 975 on the important question of law in regard to the c960 construction of s. 22 (l)(d) of the Act. Under the R -- c circumstances of this case we think the ends of justice anI';::;::~/2~a. would be met if we convict the respondents of the v. offence charged and direct that each one of them Jatin Chakravo1ty should pay a fine of rupee one. Appeal allowed. JAI KAUR & OTHERS v . SHER SINGH & OTHERS. (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. W ANCHOO and K. c. DAS GUPTA, JJ.) Hindu Law-] ats of Grewal got-Customary law of succession- N on-ancestral property-Daughter, if pref erred to collaterals- Doctrine of surrender-Gift to daughter by widow, if accelerates succession-Rattigan's Customary Law of the Punjab, para 23-Riwaj- i-am, r882, Question 43. Under the customary law prevalent amongst the Hindu Jats of Grewal got in Ludhiana, a daughter is a preferential heir to her father in respect of his self-acquired property to his collaterals. Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law, paragraph 23, which records the correct law on the point, is not in conflict with Riwaj-i-am, 1882, Question No. 43, which refers only to ancestral property and not to self-acquired property at all. Mt. Hurmate v. Hoshiaru, A.I.R. 1944 Lah. 21, approved. Mohinder Singh v. Kher Singh, A.LR. 1949 East Punjab 328, disapproved. Mt. Subhani v. Nawab, A.LR. 1941 (P.C.) 21, referred to. Case-law discussed. The doctrine of surrender in Hindu Law is based on a theory of complete self-effacement by the widow in favour of the rever- sioner and in order that such surrender·. can accelerate the reversion, it must be of the entire interest in the entire property. The law does not recognise a partial self-effacement nor a division between ancestral and non-ancestral property. The exception made in respect of a small portion of the property retained for the widow's maintenance does not detract from the rigour of the rule. Rangaswami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden, (1918) L.R. 46 I.A. 72 and Phool Kau.r v. Prem Kaur, [1952] S.C.R. 793, refer- red to. Consequently, in a case where a Hindu widow of the Jat Grewal got made a gift only of the self-acquired property of her husband to her daughters such gift had not the effect of a surrender in law so as to accelerate the daughters' succession and the gift could not be valid beyond her lifetime. Gajsndragadkar j 1960 May 6. I960 ]ai Kau, v. She, Singh Das Gupta J. 076 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960] C1vrL APPELLA'l'E JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 108/ 56. Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and decree dated May 27, 1953, of the Punjab High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 176 of 1949, against the judgment and decree dated December 20, 1948, of the District ,Judge, Ludhiana, arising <)Ut of the Judgment and decree dated February 6, 1948, of the Subordinate Judge, II Class, Ludhiana, in Suit No. 918 of 1946. Gopal Singh, for the appellants. G. B. Aggarwala and K. P. Gupta, for the respon- dents. 1960. May 6. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DAS GUPTA, J.-The suit out of which this appeal has arisen was instituted by the respondents 1 and 2, Sher Singh and Labh Singh, for a declaration that a deed of gift executed by the first appellant, Jai Kaur, in respect of 8 (1-10) Bighas of land which she had inherited from her husband, Dev Singh, in favour of her two daughters, the 2nd & 3rd appellants before us, " shall be null and void against the reversionary rights of the plaintiffs", and defendant Nos. 4 to 6 after the death of defendant No. 1 (i.e., Jai Kaur) and shall not be binding upon them. The plaintiffs' case was that these lands left by Dev Singh were all ancestral lands qua the plaintiffs and according to the customary law which governs the Jats belonging to Grewal got to which these parties belong daughters do not succeed to property left by sonless fathers and so the gift by Dev Singh's widow in favour of her daughters would ·be null and void as against the plaintiffs and others who would be entitled on Jai Kaur's death to succeed to the estate as reversioners. In the alternative, the plaintiffs contended that even if the land in suit was not ancestral qua the plaintiffs then also the deed of gift would be null and void as against their rever- sionary interests inasmuch as even as regards non- ancestral property daughters do not succeed among the' Grewal Jats. The main cont
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.