JEO Vs. UJAGAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a second appeal against a judgment and decree of the learned District Judge Amritsar, affirming the decree of the trial Court dismissing the suit.

(2.) The relationship of the parties will be clear from the pedigree-table which is as follows: GANGU | _______________________________|_____________________________ | | Akki Jagta | | Sanwalia Parana | | Bantu Milkha Sing (Lakha Singh) | | Jai Sing Fateh Singh | | Mehr Singh Ranu | ___________|__________ Gulab Sing | | | Jaimal Sing Dhanna Singh Mt. Kishan Kaur=Jawala | | Singh Sant Singh | | | Ujagar Singh (Deft.) Respdt. | | |___________________________________________________ | | (Last male holder) Mt. Jio Sahib Singh (Plff. Appellant). (Mt. Nihal Kaur) Widow The penultimate holder of the property was Jawala Singh who died on 24-11-1917. He was succeeded by his sou Sahib Singh who died in December 1918. Nihal Kaur, the widow of Sahib Singh, remarried soon after and mutation was entered in the name of Kishan Kaur, the widow of Jawala Singh and the mother of the last holder, she died on 12-11-1942, and in 1943 mutation was entered in the name of Mst. Jio, the sister of Sahib Singh. On appeal being taken to the Collector the mutation was ordered to be entered in the names of collaterals who are connected with the last male-Holder in the 9th degree. On 11-6-1945 Mst. Jio brought the present suit alleging that she was governed by special custom by which amongst Bheniwal Jats of the Amritsar Tahsil of Amritsar District a sister excluded collaterals. The defence was that the parties were governed by custom by which the sister was no kind of an heir and the land was ancestral. Another suit was brought by one Jagat Singh for possession who claimed to be a nearer collateral than the present respondents, but that suit was dismissed. On 28-8-1946 the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed and the appeal against this decree was also dismissed on 14-10-1946. It was found by the Courts below that the land in dispute is non-ancestral, that the defendants -- the present respondents -- were 9th degree collaterals of the last male-holder and that according to custom the sister is excluded by collaterals even to non-ancestral property.

(3.) The principles governing the cases of custom have now been stated by the Supreme Court in -- 'Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari', AIR 1952 SC 231 (A), and seven propositions have been laid down, 4th and 5th of which are of importance :