LexMAHANT SALIG RAM versus MUSAMMAT MAYA DEVI.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-
< ;
)
I
..
>.y·
S;C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
1191
to direct a retrial
though this is. the rionnal course .
when a jury frial is set aside on
the grounds of i:nis-
direction
and
non-direction. We tl).erefore discharge
(nqt acquit) both the appellants leaving it to Govern-
ment ~ither to drop t.he e.ntire matter or to
p~oceed
in such. manner as it may
be advised.,. We do .this
because the accused· expressly asked that
the • · charge·
under the Prevention · of ·Corruption
Act shbuld· be''·
left over ··for a separate
~rial,. ·The two convictioµ:s
~re, '
therefore quashed and. ·also . the sentences:
~e. are .
told that the first accused has already .served out his.;
sentence. The fine
if paid,
will be
refunded. The
bail bond of the second accused will .be cancelled.
MAHANT SALIG RAM
v.
MUSAMMAT MAYA DEVI.
'
(~: ~· DAS, BHAGWAT! and SYED JAFER IMA¥ JJ.] '.'
Custom-succession-Non-ancestral
property-Daughter
virsus
collateral within fourth degree-Saraswat Brahmins of Pathahl{ol •in
the
District of Gurdaspur-Riwaj-i-am-Entries ih'erein-Value of
-Riwaj-i-am of Gurdaspur District of the year 1913-Whether a
t·eliable document-,-Answer to questions 16 and 17.-Value of,
It is now well-settled that the general custoin of the P~njab,
being that a daughter excludes the collaterals from succession to the
self-acquired property of her father. the initial onus, therefore, must,
on principle, be on. the. collaterals to show that the general custom in
favour of the daughter's succession to the. self-acquired
property <1f
her tather has been varied by a special local .custom . excluding· t~c,
daughter which is binding on the parties.
.
.
.
, . •
It is also well-settled that though the entri~s ·in the'· Riwaj-i~am
are entitled to an initial presumption in favour of their cortectne,s·
irrespective of the question whether or not the custom, 'as recorded,
is in accord ·with the general custom, the quantum of evidence neces'
sary to rebut that presumption will, however, 'vary with the ·facts
and circumstances of each case.
Where, for instance; the Riwaj-i-
am lays down a custoin in consonance with the general agricultural
custom of the province, very strong proof would be required to dis- ·
place that presumption; but where, on the other hand, the custom
as recorded in the Ri waj'i-am is opposed to the custom generally
prevalent; the presumption will be considerably weakeneq, Likewise1
40-89 S. C. India/59
1954
· Shreekanliak
.Ramayya
· Munipalli
v.
The Stale of
Bomha.J
Bose].
1955
January
~1
!955
Maharit 'Sillig· Ram
v; ·'
M11sammat Maya
Dtvi
Il92
.SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1955]
where. ;he Riwaj-i-:an1 affects ad\·ersely the fights Of the feffialeS who
had ~ ._no
C!pportufiity tyhatever of appearing· before the
Revenue
authOrities, the presumption will be \Veaker still and only a few in-
stances ·would be sufficient -to rebut it.
~~ the Riw_~j-i-am prOduced is a reliable and a trustworthy ~ dot;:u-
meti.t, has'beeri. carefully prepared, ·and does not contain_ within its
four· corners cbntradictory ·s_taten1entiv of- custom, and · in· "the op1n1on
of the! Settleinent· Officer is· not a record of the wishes of the persons
appearing before ·him as to what the custom sµould be, it would. he
a pr,r:sump~ive piece of evidence in proof of the special custom se~ up,
which i~ left unrebutted by the daughters
would lead to a result
faVOUrable to the colfaterals. ·If, on the other liand, ·it is not a
docU:rUent .of· the kind indicated above, then such a Riwaj-i-am will
have flo value at all as a presumptive piece of evidence.
The Riwaj-i-ams of the
Gurdaspur district prepared by
Mr.
Kennaway in 1913 in so far as they purport to record
the
local
custom as to the right of the· daughter to succeed to the self-ac-
quired property of
h~r. father are not reliable and trustworthy docu-
ments.
The answer to question 16 al)d the answer to question
17 re-
corded therein do l).Ot ~ontain the correct record of custom.
Held,. that the appellant-a collateral within fourth
degree-
a saraswat Br3.hmin of Pathankot in the district of Gurdaspur had
failed to discharge the onus that initially rested on him that the res-
ponde(ll (the. daughter) was excluded by him in respect of. the noii-
an~~tral .property. _of her father and that therefore np burden was
y·
cast op her. of adducing evidence of particular instances. ,
The ge.neral custom laid down in para Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.