LexKEHAR SINGH & ORS. versus CHANAN SINGH & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
6 51
KEHAR SINGH & ORS.
v.
CHANAN SINGH & ORS.
December 14, 1967
(J. C. SHAH, V. RAMASWAMI AND V. BHARGAVA, JJ.]
Custo1nary law, Punjab-Sidhu lats of Muktsar Ta!1sil of Fero-;:e-
pore District-5th degree callaN!rals of deceased landowner 1vlzether take
precedence over his rnarried daughters in succession to his non-ancestral
property-General custo1n in
Rattigan's Digest or
special custon1 in
Riwaj-i-am-JUhich to prevail.
D, a Sidhu Jat of Muktsar Tahsil. Ferozepore District, Punjab was the
last male holder of certain land in •that area.
He was sucoeeded by his
widow after whose death, the land was mutated in favour of D'.s collate·
rals in the 5th de:gree,.
D's daughter filed a suit for a declaration that
she was the legal heir of the land and was entitled to inherit to the ex-
clusion of the collaterals.
The trial court held that the land was not an-
cestral but the defendants were preferential heirs under the custom of
the district.
The decree .was affirmed by the first appellate court.
Jn
second appeal, however, the High Court decided in favour of the plaintiff
holding 1hat the general custom recorded in Rattigan's Dige.st had not
been shown to be displaced by any special custom in the Riwaj-i-am. The
defendants appealed.
HELD : The entries in the Riwaj-i-am on which the appellants relied,
did not refer at all to non-ancestral property an~ were therefore not re-
levant evidence to establish a special custom among the Sidhu . jats of
Muktsar Tahsil of Feroz~pore District entitling collaterals for succession
to non-ancestral property in preference to daughters. The appellants had
not discharged the onus \Vh{ch lay upon them of proving that the gene-
ral custom had been varied by a special cuS1:om enabling the collaterals
to exclude the daughters.
It was manifest therefore that the customary
law among the Sidhu Jats of ~1uktsar Tahsil of
Feroz·~pore district as
regards non-·ance9tral property v.1as the same as recorded generally for
the State of Punjab in Paragraph 23 of Rattigan's Di!l"sl i.e. a daugh:er is
preferred to collaterals. [657 G-HJ
Mst. Raj Kaur v. Talok Singh, A.LR. 1916 Lah. 343. Budhi Prakash
v. Chandra !Jhan, A.I.R. 1918 Lah. 225, Narain v. Mst. Gaindo, A.I.R.
1918 Lah. 304. Fatima Bibi v. Shah Nawaz. A.LR. 1921 Lah. 180, Abdul
Rahman v. Mst. Natho, I.LR. [1932] 13 Lah. 458, Mst. Hurmate v.
Hoshiaru, I.L.R. 25 Lah.
228 and Mst. Subliani v. Nawab and Ors., 68
I.A. 1, referred to.
(ii) Even on the assump:ion that the Riwaj-i-am entries referred
to
the non-ancestral property of the last male holder the appellants Could not
succeed.
For though the entries in the Riwaj-i-am
ar·~ entitled to an
initial presumption in favour of their correctness. the quantum of cvi-
d~n.ce necessary to rebut this presumption would vary with the facts and
circumstances of each pal'!:icular case.
Where, for instance, the Riwaj-.i-·am
laid down a custom in consonance with the general agricultural custom
of the State, very strong proof would be required to displace this pre-
sumption, but where. on the other hand, this was not the case, 3nd the
custom as recorded in the Riwaj-i-am was opposed to the rules generaily
652
SUPRE~E COCRT REPORTS
[1968] 2 S.C.R.
pre\'alcnt the prcsumpLion \vould be con'iiJcr .. hly \vcaJ...cncd.
I.ikcv.-isc.
v.·hen the Riv.·aj-i-am affected adversely the righ1s of females "·ho h;.td
no opportun~:y \\·halcver of appearing hefnrc the rcvcn.uc authorities. the
presumption would he '''e:1kcr still, and very lilllc evidence \voul<l sufficl.!
to rebut it. [658 B-DI
Har Narai11 v. Mst. Di!ol..i, ( 1893) 24. P.R.
L!4.
Sayad Ra/ii11i Shalr
v. Sayt1d Hm.mi11 Shafi,
(1901)
102
P. R.
353,
8/10/i v. Man Si1111h,
( 1908) 86 P. R. 402 and Mahanr Salig Ram v. M<r. Mcya Dni (19551 1
S.C.R. 1191, referred to.
.
(iii) In 1he present case the High Couot had mentioned three instances
in its judµmcnt which showed that the presumption auaching to Riwaj-
i-am had been rebuued in this cose.
The appe!lar>:s-defendants had not
relied upon any instances in support of their case.
The High
Court
therefore rightly decided in ,"vour of the plaintiffs. (660 C-DJ
Mst. Raj Kaur v, Talok Si11gli, A.I.R, 1916 Lah. 343, Raua v. Mrt,
Jai Kaur, (1934) P.L.R. 69 and R.F.A. No. 220 of 1954 decided
by
the Punjab High Court on April 11 1961 , referred to.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No.
781 of
1964.
Appeal from theExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.