RAMZAN Vs. KHATJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Board is not unfamiliar with the question that arises for decision in the present appeal, and is alive to the fact that the answer to the question, as to whether a custom, at variance with the personal law of the parties to a litigation, relating to eucoession, has or has not been established, is more often than not, beset with difficulties of varying intensity. The appeal before the Board, however, presents little or no difficulty.

(2.) THE dispute in the suit, which has culminated in the present appeal, was with respect to a portion of agricultural land that, at one time, belonged to one Sultan, son of Saboor, and the sole question that was debated and discussed in, and decided by, the Cts. below was, whether a custom at variance with the Muhammadan law of succession, alleged by the pltfs. was proved. The trial and the first appellate Ct. answered the question in the affirmative and decreed the pltfs.' suit. On appeal by the deft., the H. C., however, held that the custom set up by the pltf. was not proved and accordingly, modified the decrees passed by the first two Cts.

(3.) THE pltf. applts. then filed the suit giving rise to the present appeal. They alleged that 'the deft. is not a Khana Nishin daughter, and neither under law nor custom the is entitled to inherit her brother Qadir's property'. These allegations were traversed by the deft. -reep., but the Cts. below unanimously held that the deft, was not a 'Khana Nishin' daughter, and this finding was not assailed before the Board. The cardinal question for decision, however, remains whether or not Mt. Khatji was entitled ''under law or custom to inherit her brother's property'