LUXMI BAI Vs. SITA BAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE dispute in this 2nd appeal is between two daughters of the last male holder. Smt. Laxmi Bai, who is the unmarried daughter, is seeking to exclude the married daughter. It is no doubt true that now Smt. Laxmi Bai is married but at the time the succession opened, she was unmarried daughter. It was contended at the trial that the parties are Aroras of Multan district and governed by Hindu Law. The plaintiff's contention was that they were governed by Custom, and the defendant's contention was that they were governed by Hindu Law. Both the courts below. (sic)ve found that the Aroras are governed by Custom and that according to the answer to Question 63 of H. W. Emerson's Customary Law of Multan district, both married and unmarried daughters succeed equally. In this view of the matter, the plaintiffs' suit was decreed. The defendant, the unmarried daughter at the time when the succession opened out, lays claim in this second appeal to the whole or the father's property to the exclusion of the married daughter.

(2.) MR. Roop Chand's contention was that the Custom, so far as the Aroras are concerned it not correctly recorded in Emerson's Customary Law. There are a number of instances of Aroras of Multan district given under the Ana war to question 63. Moreover, there are decided cases that Aroras of Multan district follow Custom: e. g. Bahadur Chand v. Mt. Ramon Bai, AIR 1935 Lah 514 and Bhai asu Ram v. Bulaqi Das, AIR 1937 Lah 500. A presumption of correctness attaches to the en tries in the Riwaj-i-Am and that presumption is strengthened in case the entries are support ed by instances. In the present case there are instances in support of the Custom and those instances are tabulated at Nos. 2 and 3 of page 301 below the Answer to Question 63 of Emerson's Customary Law of Multan district. Con sequently, I see no reason why an unmarreid daughter among Aroras of Multan can exclude a married daughter to her father's patrimony. Mr. Roop chand also contends that the Cus tom is not clear on the subject, but I am unable to agree with it for the reasons, already recorded. I would, threfore reject this appeal with no order as to costs.