SALIG RAM versus MUNSHI RAM AND ANOTHER

Citation: [1962] 1 S.C.R. 470 · Decided: 21-03-1961 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

z961 
March 2I. 
470 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
SALIG RAM 
v. 
MUNSHI RAM AND ANOTHER 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.) 
Punjab Customary Law-Custonis in Auiritsar district-Adop-
ted son's right to inheritance in his natural Ja111ily-Elrahmin and 
Khatri community-Punjab Laws Act, I872 (Punj. 4 of r872), s. 5. 
M, a Hindu belonging to the Brahmin community in the 
Amritsar District of Punjab, instituted a suit for the possession 
of a half share in the property left by his natural paternal grand-
father. His father had pre-deceased him, but another son of his 
grandfather was alive. He had been adopted away in a different 
family but he claimed that according to th" custom of his com-
munity in the district he was entitled to get his share in the 
estate of his natural grandfather. He based his claim on the 
principlcDf representation that he stepped into the shoes of his 
natural father. 
' 
Held, that under s. 5 of the P;,njab Laws Act, 1872, the law 
applicable to Hindus in Punjab in respect of questions regarding 
succession and other matters referred to in that section, is Hindu 
law in the first instance, but where a custom different from 
Hindu law is proved then the rights of the parties would be 
governed by that custom; and v.·hosoever asserts a custom at 
variance with Hindu law has to prove it, though the quantum 
of proof required in support of the custom which is general and 
well recognised may be small while in other cases of what are 
called special customs the quantum may be larger. 
Held, further, that in the Amritsar district of Punjab 
ainongst Brahmins and Khatris, a son given away in adoption 
can succeed to the property of his natural father if there is 
no other son of the natural father, but if there is another son he 
cannot succeed. 
Held, also, that in the present case neither under Hindu 
law nor under the customary law of Punjab could M succeed to 
the property of his natural grandfather. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTTON: 
Civil Appeal No. 
461 of 1957. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and de-
cree dated July 5, 1954, of the Punjab High Court in 
L. P. A. No. 29 of 1953. 
N. S. Bindra and Sardar Singh, for the appellant. 
P. D. Ahuja and H.P. Wanchoo, for respondent 
No. I. 
• 
• 
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
471 
1961. March 21. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
WANCHOO, ,J.-This is an appeal by special leave 
from the judgment of the Punjab High Court and 
arises out of a suit for possession of land brought by · 
Munshi Ram, respondent. 
The following pedigree-
table will be useful in understanding the claim put 
forward by the respondent:-
T 
Karori 
I 
Go bind 
I 
Santu. 
I 
Laghi 
I 
Ata 
I 
Heman 
I 
I 
Maghi 
(issueless) 
I 
Jai Dayal 
I 
Nanak Chand 
I 
Munshi Ram 
---- -- ___ I_ ----1 
(adopted son) 
I 
plain tiff Hans Raj 
I 
Munshi Ram 
Salig Ram 
(Defdt.) 
(adopted by Ata) 
The claim of Munshi Ram was with respect to the 
property left by Nanak Chand who is his natural 
grandfather and also Santu. There is no dispute now 
about the property of Santu and we are concerned in 
this appeal only with the property of Nanak Chand. 
Nanak Chand died in 1939. 
Munshi Ram's natural 
father Hans Raj had pre-deceased Nanak Chand. 
Munshi Ram himself was adopted by Ata in 1918 
before the death of his natural father Hans Raj which 
took place in 1920. It will be clear from these dates 
therefore that Hans Raj never succeeded to the pro-
perty of his father Nanak Chand and Munshi Ram 
had been adopted by Ata even .before Hans Raj's 
death. The case of Munshi Ram was that he was 
entitled to one-half share of the property left by Nanak 
Chand as his heir according to Zamindara custom. 
The parties, it may be mentioned, are Brahmins and 
Munshi Ram claimed joint possession of the half 
share of the property left by Nanak Chand on his 
Salig Ram 
v. 
Munshi Ram 
U"anchoo ]. 
Salig Rain 
v. 
Munshi Ram 
ivanchoo ]. 
472 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1962] 
death. The suit was resisted by Sa!ig Ram (defendant. 
appellant) who is the other son of Nanak Chand. His 
case was that Munshi Ram was not entitled either 
according to personal law or the riwaj-i-am of Amritsar 
district to any share in the property left by Nanak 
Chand. The trial court held that Munshi Ram was 
entitled to succeed to the property left by Nanak 
Chand along with Salig Ram and decreed the suit 
accordingly. Salig Ram went in appeal to the Dis-
trict Judge but failed. He then went in sec

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.