RATI RAM Vs. SHIV CHARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WHETHER a sonless Gaur Brahmin governed by customary law and belonging to Rohtak Tehsil, is competent to make a testamentary disposition of his property in favour of a close relation in lieu of services or not, is the short question which we are called upon to decide in this case.

(2.) IN order to properly understand the facts out of which this controversy has arisen, it would be useful to have a look at the following pedigree table:- (See below pedigree table) UNKNOWN ______________________________| ___________________________ || Bhururam Nath ______________________________________________ ||| Dhari Ramjag Ramchet Ram propositus|| (died issueless)| Rati Ram, Defendant No. 1, | Bansi Ram, Defendant No. 2, | Badri Defendant No. 3, | Ram Sarup. _________________ |__________________ || Shiv Charanbaldev Plaintiff (died during the pendency of the suit)

(3.) CHET Ram was adopted as a son by Ram Nath, Dhari Ram deceased had 1/4th share in land measuring 66 Kanals 5 Marlas and 1/4th share in two houses specified in the plaint. On May 6, 1964, he executed the will dated 6-5-1964 (Exhibit DW1/1) bequeathing his share in the aforementioned property in favor of Rati Ram and Bansi Ram, defendants-appellants Nos. 1 and 2. Dhari Ram died on April 25, 1965. Shiv Charan plaintiff respondent No. 1, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction to the effect that the parties were Gaur Brahmins governed by customary law and Dhari Ram propositus was debarred from making testamentary disposition of his property which was ancestral qua him in favour of Rati Ram and Bansi Ram who were remote collaterals, Rati Ram and Bansi Ram defendants-appellants contested the pleas raised in the plaint and asserted that the Will in dispute was valid as the same had been made in lieu of services.