LexUJAGAR SINGH versus MST. JEO
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
-------.-- ~---· (2) S.O.R. SUPH.EME COURT HEPOHTS > ~781 · UJAGAR SINGH, v. ·l\IST. JEO (JAFER b1A~1, A. K. SARKAR and SunnA RAO, JJ.) Customary Law-Proof of custom-TVhm can be taken judicial notice · of-]at agriculturists of the Punjab-Sister inheriting brother's property in preference to collaterals-Indian Evidence Act, r872 (rof r872), s. 57(r). · The question involved in this appeal was whether under the customary law of the Punjab a sister was a preferential heir in respect of her brother's self-acquired property, to a collateral. The respondent, the sister, relied on a custom, which she termed a special custom; and on that basis claimed her brother's pro- . perty, and the appellant, a collateral of the 8th degree of her brother, resisted her claim relying solely, on a· general custom stated in paragraph 24 of the Rattigan's Digest of the Customary Laws of the Punjab to the effect that sisters were excluded by collaterals in the matter of inheritance to non-ancestral property. The Subordinate Judge, and the District Judge on appeal, held in favour of the appellant but the High Court revei:sed their deci- sions holding that, there was no such general custom as recorded by Rattigan and that it was in any event for the appellants to prove that custom and this he had failed to do. The High Court also held that the respondent had succeeded in proving the custom set up by her •. It was contended on behalf of the appel- lant that the High Court was in error in placing the onus of pro- ving the custom on him since the custom was a general custom as stated by Rattigan. IIe/d, that no distinction could be made bet.ween a general custom or other customs so far as the need of proof \Vas con- cerned and the ordinary rule was that all customs, general or otherwise, had to be proved unless. by repeated recognition by · the courts a custom had become entitled to judicial notice under s. 57(1) of the Evidence Act. Raja Rama Rao v. Raja of Pittapt<r, (1918) LR. 45 LA. 148, relied on. Although there could be no doubt that Rattigan·s Digest was of the highest authority on questions of custom of the Pun- jab, it was not possible, regard being had to the formidable array of conflicting decis;ons of the courts as to its existence, to take judicial notice of the custom mentioned in paragraph 24 of the Digest, without further proof. Case-law reviewed. Although the respondent had in the plaint relied on a cus- tom and termed it a special custom, that could not amount to an 1959 April a3. ' \ '" .. - \ . '\ 782 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1959) Supp . . r959 admission which would obviate the , necessity of proof of the general customs or its. terms by the appellant. Ujaga, Singh Even supposing that the High Court was not correct in its v. finding that the respondent had proved. the custom entitling her • Mst feo to succeed, as the custom set up by the appellant had not also been established, s. S of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872, applied and the case had to be decided by the personal law of the parties. The respondent was entitled to base her claim on the personal _ law although in her plaint she had relied on a custom. The per- ---- -· sonal law of the parties was the Hindu law and the respondent was entitled to succeed under that law also. Daya Ram v. Sahel Singh, no P.R. 1906, Abdul Hussein Khan v. Bibi Sona Dero, (1917) L.R. 45 I.A. 10 and Mst. Fatima Bibi v. Shah Nrrwaz, (1920) I.L.R. 2 Lah. 98, relied on. CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No . 296 of 1955. · Appeal by· special leave from tho judgment and decree dated September 8, 1952, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 327of1948, · arising out of the judgment and decree dated Novem- ber 21, 1947,.of the Court of District Judge, Amritsar, in Appeal No. 212 of 1946 from the judgment and decree dated August 20, · 1946, of the Subordinate Judge, 1st Class, Amritsar, in Suit No. 297 of 1945. Achhru Ram and R. S. Narula, for the appellant. Gurbachan ·Singh and Madan Lal Kapur, for the respondent. 1959. April 23. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Sa•••• f. SaBKAR, J.-The suit out, of which this appeal • arises concerns the right to certain plots of land in - village Sultanwind, Tehsil and District Amritsar in the Punjab. It raises a question of the Punjab cus- toms. Sahib Singh, the last male owner of the lands in dispute, died in December 1918 leaving a widow Ni
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.