LexSADA KAUR versus BAKHTAWAR SINGH AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
85 SADA KAUR v. BAKHTAW AR SINGH AND ORS. July 24, 1980 [A. C. GUPTA AND N. L. UNTWALIA JJ.J Hindu Law:__Dhaliwal lat Sikhs of Muktsar-Widow marrying her late /ms- band's brothe1~If forfeits life interest in the estate of her deceased husband- Riwaj-i-am and Rattigan's Digest of customary law in Punjab-In case of co!!flict which should prevail. The first three respondents and the deceased husband of the appellant who were Dhaliwal jats of Muktsar Tehsil in Ferozepur District of Punjab were brothers. After the death of her husband the appellant married the your:ger bwther of her late husband in Karewa form. The first two respondents filed a suit for a declaration that having married for the second time, .the appellant had forfeited her interest in her deceased husband's estate and· that they were entitled to two-third share of the land in her possession. The appellant on the other hand claimed that they were governed by cus- tomary law and according to their custom a widow marrying her deceased husband's brother did not forfeit her interest in the estate of her deceased husband. In replication the respondents stated that according to the custom governing Dhaliwal jats of Tehsil Muktsar a widow remarrying even her deceased .husband's brother forfeited her right in the estate. The trial Court declined to grant the declaration; but the District Judge allowed the plaintiffs' appeal. The High Court did not accept the appellant's claim that there was a special custom. Dismissing the appeal . HELD: The High Court was right in holding that there was no special custom among Dhaliwal jats of Tehsil Muktsar which. permitted a widow, on remarriage with her deceased husband's brother. to retain her interest in the- estate of her deceased husband. . It is well-known that custom in the Punjab changes from district to district, A. c F tehsil to tehsil and pargana to pargana. [88A] · G· -1 It has been held by this Court that entries in the riwaj+am compiled in 1915 by Currie, Settlement Officer, are relevant evidence und'er section 35 of the Evidence Act. [88F-G] Mahant Salig Ram v. Mst. Maya Devi, [1955] I SCR 1191' and· lai Kaur and others v. Sher Singh and others, [1960] 3 SCR 975 referred to. Entry 47 of the riwaj-i-am states that whenever a widow re-marries, even if she marries the brother of her deceased husband, she loses her right to her deceased husband's estate and that the estak reverts at once to his agnate~. 86 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1981] I S.C.R. ..A As regards the effect of re-marriage, all tribes that admit widow re-marriage agree that no matter whom the widow marries she forfeits all rights to her de- ceased husband's .estate. [89D] ·C D F Another authoritative compilation is Rattigan's Digest of Customary Law in the Punjab. But when custom as recorded in the riwaj-him is in conflict with the general custom as recorded in Rattigan's Digest or ascertained other- wise, the entries in the riwaj-i-am ·would ,ordinarily prevail. On this aspect of the custom there is no conflict between the two because Rattigan's Digest also states that in the absence of custom, the re-marriage of a widow causes a for- feiture of her life interest in her first husband's estate which then reverts to the nearest heir of the husband. (90E-F] One of the exceptions recorded to this general custom, however, is that among certain tribes re-marriage in the Karewa form with the brother of the deceased husband does not cause a forfeiture of the widow's life estate in the property of her first husband. But among the cases· cited. in support of the special custom relating to Sikh jats of certain districts of Punjab there is no mention of Dhaliwal jats of Tehsil Muktsar. It was for the first time that in the 12th edition of Rattigan's Digest published long after his death that an exception was added that by custom among the Sikh jats of the Punjab a 'widow does not forfeit her life estate in her deceased husband's property by reason of. her remarriage in Kare.wa form with her husband's brother, whether h:! be the sole surviving brother or there are other brothers as well of the deceased. Sant Singh• v. Rari Bai (AIR 1924 Sindh 17=76 Indian Cases 408) on which this exception is purported to be based does not Jay down any such broad proposi- tion to justify the statement aaded in the 12th edition of Rattigan's book. In Sant Singh's case the parties were Sikh jats from Jul
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.