LABH SINGH Vs. SARJIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has arisen under the following circumstances. One Bubedar Bhan Singh, a Thind Jat of the village Dialpura in Pargana Utalan in Tahsil Samrala of Ludhiana District, died on 16 January 1941 leaving him surviving three sons, namely, Labh Singh, Surjit Singh and Bakhatawar Singh. Of these Labh Singh was from one mother, namely, Mt. Bishni while Surjit Singh and Bakhatawar Singh were from another mother, namely, Mt Santi. Bhan Singh left considerable movable and immovable property. On his death the mutation in respect of a part of the landed property left by him was sanctioned in the names of his three sons in equal shares. In November 1944, Labh Singh brought the suit which has given rise to the present appeal for possession of a 1/6 share of the land in respect of which mutation had been sanctioned and for a declaration of his title to a one-half share in the other land left by his father. He also claimed a one-half share in the movable property left by the latter. The ground of claim was that according to the custom governing the parties tribe Chundawand rule applied. The defendents Surjit Singh and Bakhatawar Singh resisted the suit on the plea that the rule of Pagwand applied and that under that rule the three sons of the deceased were entitled to succeed to the property left by him in equal shares. The learned trial Judge negatived the contention of the plaintiff and, holding that the rule of Pagwand applied, dismissed his suit for possession of 1/6 of the land regarding which a mutation had been sanctioned in the names of the parties in equal shares. He granted the plaintiff a declaration of his title to one third only in the inheritance of his father and decreed his claim for recovery of his share of the movable property on that basis. Feeling aggrieved from this decree the plaintiff has come- up in appeal to this Court.

(2.) The only question that arises for decision in the appeal is whether the plaintiff is entitled to a one-half share in the inheritance of his father according to the Chundawand rule or must share the same equally with his brothers without any reference to their mothers.

(3.) The learned Counsel for the appellant has mainly relied on EX. P. 21 which is a copy of para. 14 of the wajib-ul-ara relating to the village of the parties prepared at the settlement of 1852. The heading of para. 14 is: "Relating to sale and mortgage of lands owned by Khewatdars." About the end of the paragraph a statement to the following effect is to be found: After the death of their father, the sons from the previous and the present wives shall be owners in equal shares according to Chundawand Rule getting share per stirpe. The plaintiff has also produced copies of para. 14 in the wajibul-arzes of two other villages, namely, the village Kotla Shamaspur and the village Isru, prepared at the aforesaid settlement. Of these the village Kotla Shamaspur was situate like the village of the parties, in Pargana Utalan while the village Isru was situate in a different Pargana, namely, Pargana-Khanna. These paragraphs of the wajib-ul-arz of these villages are identical in terms with para. 14 of the wajib-ul-arz of the village of the parties to which reference has already been made. The object of the plaintiff in "producing these copies appears to be to show that the custom of Chundawand prevailed also in the neighbouring villages, evidence having been led to show that both the aforesaid villages are situate at a short distance from the parties village.