Holding

The Zimindara customary law of the Sidhu Jat community prevails over the statutory provisions, granting the surviving widow Raj Kaur the right of survivorship and denying the daughter any succession right.

Summary

The case concerned the inheritance of ancestral land of the Sidhu Jat community in Punjab. After the death of Relu Singh, his two widows – Sobhi and Raj Kaur – and his two sons succeeded to the estate. When the sons died without issue, the property was mutated in favour of the widows, and Raj Kaur, who had remarried her deceased husband’s brother under the local "Karewa" custom, claimed the entire estate by survivorship. The appellant, Ass Kaur, daughter of Sobhi, argued that under the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 and the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937, she was the preferential heir and that customary law should not override the statutes. The Supreme Court held that the parties were governed by the Zimindara custom of Sidhu Jats, which was not excluded by the statutes; therefore the custom prevailed and the surviving widow succeeded to the whole property, leaving the daughter without a right. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

The applicability of the Zimindara customary law of Sidhu Jats versus the Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929, the Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act, 1937 and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 in determining succession.
Whether a widow who remarries her deceased husband’s brother (Karewa marriage) acquires survivorship rights over co‑widows under the custom.
Whether the customary law is a general, special or family custom and whether it is excluded by Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Whether the daughter of a co‑widow is a preferential heir under the statutory scheme.

Legislation cited

Subjects

customary lawZimindara customSidhu JatsinheritancesuccessionHindu Succession Act 1956Hindu Women’s Right to Property Act 1937Hindu Law of Inheritance (Amendment) Act 1929Karewa marriagesurvivorshipsection 4 HSA exclusion

Judgment

SMT. ASS KAUR (DECEASED) BY L.RS.
A v.
( 'f'

KARTAR SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. AND ORS.

MAY 18, 2007

B [S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KA TJU, JJ.]

Customary laws-Sidhu Jats governed by Zimindara customs-Widow ,
marrying her first husband's brother who was already married-Inheritance
and succession under the 1929 Act and 1937 Act-Applicability of customary ..,
c laws--Held: Customary law would prevail over the statutory law since its
application was not excluded in the statutory /aw-Property being ancestral,
on the death of one of the co-widow the other surviving widow' would take
the property by survivorship-Act of 1929 being subject to the applicability
of customary law, daughter of the deceased widow has no right of succession
in preference to her step mother-Widow married her first husband's brother
, D just to safeguard the family property-If daughters who were married were
to be excluded by customary law, no exception thereto can be taken-Hindu
~
Women's Right to Property Act, 1937-Hindu Law ofInheritance (Amendment)
Act, 1929.

E Practice and Procedure-Plea-Raising of. for the first time before this
Court-Held: Not maintainable.

RS had two wives, Sand RK. RK was originally married to HS-brother
of RS. On the death of HS, RS married RK under the customary law of the
land. RS on his death was succeeded by two wives and sons IS and MS and
F daughter AS-appellant. IS died in 1926 and MS in 1937. S died in 1950 and
RK died fifteen years later. Appellant-daughter of S, claimed half share in ~
the property. Respondents contended that after the death of HS, RK contracted ~

Karewa marriage with RS in accordance with custom and had a son through
HS; that under the Punjab customary laws governing inheritance and
succession of Sidhu Jats, after the death of RS his two sons and two widows
G succeeded to his estate; that after death of IS and MS, their properties were
mutated in the name ofS and RK; that S was a limited owner and on her death
in the year 1950, RK succeeded to her by rule of survivorship; and that under
~
the customary law, the appellant had no right of succession in preference to r
670
H
ASS KAUR (DECEASED) BY L.RS. v. KARTAR SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. 671
the deceased widow. Courts below held that the parties being Sidhu Jats were .(\.
.. ~ governed by Zimindara customs in the matter of inheritance and ~uccession
in terms whereof RK succeeded to the estate of RS after the death of S and
that her estate was enlarged into full ownership after coming into force of
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. High Court held that the Revenue Officers
rightly sanctioned the mutation of the estate of S in favour of RK. Hence the
B
present appeal

Appellant contended that RS having only I/3rd share in the property;
r the other co-sharers being MS and IS, on his death his I/3rd share devolved
upon his two wives jointly as also, his two sons IS and MS; that on IS's death
his interest in the property devolved upon MS who became the absolute owner c
in respect thereof and on MS's death the properties devolved upon his mother
Sand on S's death, in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Law oflnheritance
(Amendment) Act, I929 the appellant succeeded her as heir of RS; that S
having life interest in the property, on her death the same devolved upon the
appellant as daughter of RS as a reversioner; that a step mother being not an D
heir or a relation for the purpose of inheritance and succession, she could
not inherit the interest of IS and MS; that custom prevailing in the family
~
which had been relied upon being a general custom and not a special or
personal custom would be subservient to the 1929 Act and Hindu Women's
Right to Property Act, 1937; and that purported reliance upon the customary
E
law by the courts below is misplaced.

Dismissing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. Custom is one of the three sources of Hindu Law. Custom
may override a statute subject, of course, to a clear proof of usage. In absence F I

of any proof of custom, indisputably the Hindu Law would apply. Hindu Law
..,
recognizes three types of customs: local custom, class custom and family
custom. !Paras 9, 10 and I6] 1677-E-F; 680-CJ

1.2. As statutory law did not exclude the applicability of the customary
G
law, customary law would prevail over the statutory law. It was so found by
courts below. The courts below categorically held that the parties were
governed by Zimindara custom and the law to be applicable in the instant case
-, is the customary law having regard to the fact that the parties belonged to the
~()mmunity of Sidhu Jats. Whether the sai~ custom is a general custom, or a
H
672 \.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A special custom or a family custom has not been stated. The customary law
prevailing in the State of Punjab has received a statutory sanction by reas~n
of the Punjab Law Act, 1872. (Paras 10, 17 and 2511681-H; 680-D; 677-F)

1.3. There cannot be any dispute in law that RK did not inherit the
interest of MS in whom the interest of IS had also vested upon his death. His
B interest under the general law had devolved upon S. JPara 8) (677-D)

1.4. Amongst the Sikhs Jats of Punjab province, there exists a custom,
w.here the widow marries her first husband's brother in the karewa form,
remarriage would not cause forfeiture of her own share.
(Para 11) (678-D)
c
Chunnila/ v. Mst. Attar Kaur, AIR (1933) Lah 69, referred to•

. 1.5. In respect of Jats belonging to Firozepur district, it has been held
that
.
a ..
widow who remarried her first husband's brother succeeds to a co-
D widow in preference to collaterals. But the widow's right only accrues on
. husband's death, and if~t does not accrue then, it cannot accrue later by the , ·
death of subsequent heir. Even a woman who had contracted such marriage
may not forfeit her life estate, if any, in her deceased husband's property
despite the provisions of the Hindu Widows Remarriage Act, 1856. However,
the said principle would not apply where a re-marriage is not with the brother
E of her deceased but with some other relative. (Para 12) (678-E-G)
Mst. Dakho v. Mst. Gano, 22 P.R. 889; Shrimonai .Gurdwara
Prabandhak Committee and Ors. v. Harcharan Singh, AIR (1934) Lahore 1;
Diwan Singh and Anr. v. Na#ia Singh and Ors., AIR (1937) Lahore 468;
.F Ujagar Singh v. Mst. Jeo, AIR (1959) SC 1041; R.B.S.S. Munno/al and Ors.
v. S.S. Rajkumar and Ors., AIR (1962) SC 1493 and Harcharan Singh v.
Mohinder Kaur AIR (1987) P & H 138, referred to.

1.6. The court can take judicial notice of such customs in terms of
G section 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872. As and when custom has repeatedly
been recognized by the courts, the same need not be proved.
(Para 19) (680-G)

Ujagar Siogh v. Mst. ieo, AIR (1959) SC 1041 and Bawa v. Taro, AIR
(1951) Punjab 239, referred to.

H 1.7. lfthe 1929 Act applies, the appellant would succeed to the interest
ASS KAUR(DECEASED) BY L.RS. v. KARTAR SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. 673

....... ' of her brother after her mother's death; but the said Act of 1929 is also subject A
to the applicability of customary law. (Para 24) 1681~1
Daya Singh (Dead) through l.Rs. and Anr. v. Dhan Kaur, AIR (1974)
SC 665, referred to.

1.8. A submission was raised that the validity of customs must be judged
on the touchstone of justice, equity and good conscience. No such submission
B
had been raised before trial court or High Court. It is one thing to say that
t customary law had no application or the custom had not been proved; but it is
another thing to say despite its acceptance and proof the same should not be
applied on the ground of equity, justice and good conscience. Therefore, such
submission cannot go into. IPara 26) 1682-A-B) c
1.9. No submission had also been raised before the courts below that
the custom in question is not a special or local custom, but merely a general
custom. Such a contention again cannot be allowed to be raised for the first
time before this Court particularly in view of the fact that they have
categorically held that the Jats are governed by customary law; the principle D
being 'keeping of the property within the family'. IPara 1911682-C)

1.10. RK, who was a widow of HS was married to another brother just to
safeguard the family property. She succeeded under the customary laws to
her husband after the death of her co-widow. In that view of the matter, if the
daughters who were married were to be excluded by customary law, no E
exception thereto can be taken. [Para 28) (682-D)

1.11. The customary law has been specifically been excluded in terms
of section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. If the intention of the makers
of the statute in the 1929 was to completely exclude the applicability of the
F
..( customary law, it would have been said so explicitly. (Para 311 (683-B)

Dharma Shamrao Agalawe v. Pandurang Miragu Agalawe and Ors.,
{198812 SCC 126 and Sheela Devi and Ors. v. Lal Chand and Anr., 120061
10 SCALE 75, distinguished.
G
Smt. Dipo v. Wassan Singh and Ors., 11983) 3 SCC 376, referred to.

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 12395of1996.

From the Final Judgment and Order dated 21.1.1991 of the High Court
of Punjab and Haryana, in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 2166of1978. H
674 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007] 7 S.C.R.

A R. Sundravardan, Sr. Adv., Rekha Palli and Anant Vajai Palli for the
Appellants.

Jana Kalyan Das, (NP) for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
B
S.B. SINHA, J. I. A question of some importance in relation to
applicability of custom in the matter of inheritance and succession under the
Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 falls for our consideration in this
appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 21.0 l . l 99 l passed by
the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 2166
C ofl978.

2. The relationship between the parties is not in dispute, which would
appear from the following genealogical table :
Sohan Singh
D I

Jiwan Singh Hira Singh-Wife Raj Kaur Relu Singh-Wife Sobhi-Raj Kaur
[died before I I [Wife]
09.12.84] Sham Singh I
I I I
E I Nand Singh
I [Deft. No. 4 ] Inder Singh Mehar Singh Ass Kaur
I [died in 1926] [died in 1937] [died]
Through L.Rs
Kartar Guizar Mukhitiar
F Singh Singh Singh
[Deft.No.I] [Deft. No. 2] [Deft. No.3]
[died]
Represented through L.Rs.
3. We are concerned with the branch of Relu Singh. He had two wives,
G namely, Sobhi and Raj Kaur. Raj Kaur was originally married to the brother
to his brother Hira Singh, who had died in the year 200 I. Relu Singh married
to Raj Kaur on the death of brother under the customary law of the land. Relu
Singh died in the year 1907. He was succeeded by his two wives and two
sons lnder Singh and Mehar Singh alias Dalip Singh and daughter, the
appellant. Inder Singh died in the year 1926 and Mehar Singh died in the year
H 1937. Sobhi, the first wife of Relu Singh and the mother of Mehar Singh and
ASS KAUR (DECEASED) BY L.RS. v. KARTAR SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 675

Inder Singh, died in the year 1950. Raj Kaur died about five years prior to A
the institution of the suit i.e. in the year 1970. Ass Kaur, daughter of Sobhi
and sister of Mehar Singh and Inder Singh claimed 1/2 share in the property.
The defendants-respondents contended that after the death of her husband
--~
Hira Singh, Raj Kaur contracted Karewa marriage with Relu Singh in accordance
with custom. She had a son through Hira Singh. It was urged that under
the Punjab customary laws governing inheritance and succes.sion of Sidhu B
Jats after the death of Relu Singh, his two sons and two widows succeeded
to his estate. After the death of Inder Singh and Mehar Singh, their
t properties were mutated in the name of their mother Sobhi and their step
mother Raj Kaur. Again purported to be in tenns of the rule of survivorship
in accordance with the local and tribal customs her name was mutated after C
the death ofSobhi. She remained in exclusive possession of the said property
and upon coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, she became
the absolute owner thereof. It was also contended that Sobhi was a limited
owner and on her death in the year 1950, Raj Kaur succeeded to her by rule
of survivorship. It was furthennore pleaded that under the customary law, the
appellant herein had no right of succession in preference to the widow. D
4. The courts below while holding that the appellant herein was daughter
of Sobhi, opined that the parties were governed by the customary laws in
the matter of inheritance and succession in terms whereof Raj Kaur succeeded
to the estate of Relu Singh after the death of Sobhi and that her estate was E
enlarged into full ownership after coming into force of the Hindu Succession
Act. The High Court held :

" ..... Smt. Sobhi died on December 3, 1953 and mutation regarding her
share was made in favour ofSmt. Raj Kaur being the co-widow of her
late husband Relu Singh on July 31, 1955 i.e before coming into force p
of Hindu Succession Act. In para 13 of the Rettigan on Customary
Law, on the death of a co-widow the other surviving widow takes the
property survivorship. Revenue Officers rightly sanctioned the
mutation of the estate of Smt. Sobhi in favour of Smt. Raj Kaur, her
co-widow ....."
G
5. Keeping in view the importance of the question involved, as also the
fact that nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents, we requested Mr.
R. Sundravardan, the learned Senior Counsel, to assist us in the matter.

6. Contentions of Mr. Sundravardan and Mrs. Palli are as under :
H
676 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R. >-

A (i) Rehi Singh having only I/3rd share in the property; the other co-
r Y'
sharers thereof being lnder Singh and Mehar Singh, on his death I
~is I/3rd share devolved upon his two wives jointly a5 also, his
two sons lnder Singh and Mehar Singh.

B
{ii) On lnder Singh's death his interest in the property devolved
upon Mehar Singh who became the absolute owner in respect
thereof. On Mehar Singh's death ·which took place on 05.06.1937,
----
the properties devolved upon his moth.er Sobhi. On Sobhi's
death, in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Law of Inheritance
t
(Amendment) Act, 1929, (1929 Act) the appellant herein
succeeded her as heir of Relu Singh.
c
(lit) Sobhi having life interest in the property, on her death the same
devolved upon the appellant herein as daughter of Relu Singh,
as a reversioner.
(iv) A step mother being not an heir or a relation for the purpose of
D inheritance and succession; she could not inherit the interest of
Inder Singh and Mehar Singh.
(v) Custom prevailing in the family which had been relied upon being y
a general custom and not a special or personal custom would be
subservient to the 1929 Act and Hindu Women's Right to Property
Act, 1937 being Act XVIII of 1937.
E
(vi) Purported reliance upon the customary law by the courts below
is misplaced.

7. Before embarking on the contentions of the learned counsel, we may
notice the following findings of the courts below, wherein it is stated that
F Sidhu Jats were governed by Ziritindara custom :

"There is no dispute that the defendants are Sidhu Jats who are r
predominantly agricultural tribe and were governed by agricultural
custom in matters of marriage succession alienation etc. Necessary
evidence on the point has been supplied by all the witnesses of the
G defendant w1'o were pushed in to prove relationship of Sham Singh,
Raj Kaur and Hira Singh as their son .. It may also be observed that
though the defendants denied in· the written statement that the suit
property was allotted during consolidation of holding in lieu of the
r
.
)

land held by Relu the learned counsel for the defendants made their
H statements on 26.3.1977 admitting this fact. The copies of the revenue
ASS KAUR (DECEASED) BY L.RS. v. KARTAR SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. [S.B. SINHA, J.) 677

record Exhibits D3 to 030, however establish beyond doubt that the A
suit land was held by Sohna Singh father of Relu Singh and Hira
Singh and after his death it was inherited by them. It is therefore the
common case of the parties that the suit land was ancestral in the
hands of Relu Singh. Now at the time of the death of Relu Singh
about 60 years back these Sidhu Jats of Muktsar Tehsil who were
obviously governed by Zimindara custom, the daughter was in the B

-
presence of sons. No share was to be given to the plaintiff at the
time of the death of her father Relu Singh and this estate was mutated
correctly in the names of Inder Singh and Mehar Singh alias Dalip
Singh. Similarly after the death of Inder Singh the estate was mutated
in the name of his other brother Mehar Singh. However, when Mehar C
Singh died issueless, the estate reverted back to his father and Sobha
and Raj Kaur succeeded to her not as her mother or step mother but
as widows of his father"

8. There cannot be any dispute in law that Raj Kaur did not inherit the
interest of Mehar Singh in whom the interest of lnder Singh had also vested D
upon his death. His interest under the general law had devolved upon Sobhi.
The question, however, which remains as to whether in a case of this nature
the customary law would prevail in regard to the question as to whether
Appellant or the said Raj Kaur inherited the interest of Sobhi.

9. Custom is one of the three sources of Hindu Law. Custom may E
override a statute subject, of course, to a clear proof of usage.

I 0. Hindu law recognizes three types of customs : local custom, class
custom and family custom. The courts below have held that the parties were
governed by Zimindara custom. Whether the said custom is · a general F
custom, or a special custom or for that matter a family custom has not been
stated. The customary law prevailing in the State of Punjab has received a
statutory sanction by reason of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872, Sections 5 and
7 whereof read as under :

"5. Decisions in certain cases to be according to Native law.- In G
questions regarding succession, special property of females, betrothal,
marriage divorce, dower, adoption, guardianship, minority, bastardy,
family relations, wills, legacies, gifts, partitions, or any religious usage
or institution the rule of decision shall be

(a) any custom applicable to the parties concerned, which is not H
678 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 7 S.C.R.

A contrary to justice, equity or good conscience, and has not been by
this or any other enactment altered or abolished, and has not been
.declared to be void by any competent authority.

(b) the Muhammadan law, in cases where the parties are
Muhammadans and the Hindu law, in cases where the parties are
B Hindus, except in so far as such law has been altered or abolished by t
legislative enactment, or is opposed to the provisions of this Act, or
has been modified by any such customs as is above referred to."

"7. Local customs and mercantile usages when valid.-All local
customs and mercantile usages shall be regarded as valTd, unless they
C are contrary to justice, equity or good conscience, or have, before the
passing of this Act, been declared to be void by any competent
authority."

11. Amongst the Sikh Jats of Punjab province, there exists a custom,
where the widow marries her first husband's brother in the Karewa form,
D remarriage would not cause forfeiture of her own share. [See Chunnilal v.
Mst. Attar Kaur, AIR 1933 Lah. 69].
y
12. In respect of Jats belonging to Firozepur district, it has been held
that a widow who remarried her first husband's brother succeeds to a co-
E widow in preference to collaterals. But the widow's right only accrues on
husband's death, and if it does not accrue then, it cannot accrue later by the
death of subsequent heir. The fact, if the widow is a Karewa widow it would
not':affect her right in a suit the parties to which were the two widows of a
Manhas Rajput resident in the Shakargarh Tehsil of Gurudaspur District, had •
;
that the plaintiff (upon whom under the circumstances the onus lay) had
F failed to prove a custom in her favour, excluding the defendant, who was a
co-widow by a Karewa marriage, from succeeding to a share in the deceased
husband's estate (Mst. Dakho v. Mst. Gano 22 P.R. 889]. Even a woman
who had contracted such marriage may not forfeit her life estate, if any, in her
deceased husband's property despite the provisions of the Hindu widows
G Remarriage Act, 1856. However, the said principle would not apply where. a
remarriage is not with the brother of her deceased but with· some other
relative.

13. In Shrimonai Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee and Ors. v.
Harchar~n Singh, AIR (1934) Lahore I, a Division Bench of the Lahore High (

H Court held :

'/:
ASS KAUR (DECEASED) BY L.RS. v. KARTAR SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. [S.B. SINHA, J.] 679

"First of all, it was objected that Harcharan Singh was not the A
legal representative of his deceased brother Gurcharan Singh, but that
his mother Mr. lJttam Kaur, was his legal representative. Counsel for
Harcharan Singh stated before the Tribunal that he had no objection
to the mother also being impleaded as the legal representative of the
deceased Gurcharan Singh, if it was held that she was one. It was
denied however that she was the legal representative of the deceased B
Gurcharan Singh, and this contention was upheld by the Tribunal on
1 the unrebutted testimony of the witness examined. There is no
question that this decision is right. A mother as a rule in the Punjab,
where custom is the rule of decision, only succeeds when there are
no sons and the succeeds not as the mother of the sons but as the C
widow of her deceased husband. See in this connection the replies
to questions 35, 41 and 53 of Currie's Customary Law of the Ferozepore
District. In reply to the last question there is a note to the effect that
the mother succeeds really as the widow of her husband and not as
the mother of the last owner. There are numerous decisions to this
effect as well. It follows that, where there are sons they exclude the · D
mother and if a son dies he is succeeded by his brother but when the
last surviving son dies without issue then the mother succeeds in her
capacity as widow of her deceased husband. I may here refer to one
authority that of a Full Bench, reported as Mt. Desi v. Lehna Singh.
It is clear from this case that there were two sons who both died E
without issue and it was not till the death of the second that their
mother set up a claim as against the collaterals. She was however
non-suited on the ground that she had remarried and could not
therefore be looked upon as the widow of her first husband."

[Emphasis supplied] F
14. Yet again in Diwan Singh and Anr. v. Natha Singh and Ors., AIR
( 193 7) Lahore 468, it was held :

" ... The case of a mother inheriting property on the death of her son
obviously stands on a different footing and cannot, I think, be G
considered to be analogous to the present case. In the present
instance, it seems clear that when the widow Mt. Utmi succeeded
collaterally on the death of Jowala Singh and Mihan Singh, she
succeeded to the estate as the representative of her husband and not
of Jowala Singh or Mihan Singh. Consequently on her death the
H
680 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A estate must, I think, be treated as though Prem Singh himself had
succeeded to it..."

15. Our attention has, however, been drawn to a decision of this Court
in Ujagar Singh v. Mst. Jeo, AIR (1959) SC 1041, wherein this Co~rt· upori
noticing a large number of conflicting decisions, came to the conclusion that
B existence of a general Cl)stom entitling the collaterals to succeed in preference
to sister had not been proved .. It, therefore, seemed to Their Lordships that
in the interest of justice the respondent th.erein (sister) should succeed in the
suit as her brother's heir undet the Hindu law. t

16. In absence of any proof of custom, indisputably the Hindu Law
C would apply. A' fortiori Hindu Law oflnheritance (Amendment) Act, 1929 in
terms whereof a sister becomes an heir in preference to the collaterals would
be applicable in regard to devolution of property.

17. We may, however, notice that customary law has been recorded in
D Rattigan' s Digest of Customary Laws. The courts below have categorically
held the law to be applicable in the instant case is the customary law having
regard to the fact that the parties belonged to the community of Sidhu Jats.

18. In R.B.S.S. Munnala/ and Ors. v. S.S. Rajkumar and Ors., AIR (1962)
SC 1493, this Court was considering the question as to whether a Jain widow
E could adopt a son to her husband without his express authority, being
governed by the custom which had by long acceptance become part of the
law applicable to them. Therein, it was observed :

" .. .It is well-settled that where a custom is repeatedly brought to the
notice of the Courts of a country, the courts may hold that custom
F introduced into the law without the necessity of proof in each individual
case ... "

19. The court can also take judicial notice of such customs in terms of
Section 57 of the Evidence Act, 1872. As and when custom has repeatedly
been recognized by the courts, the same need not be proved. Reference in
G regard to the Punjab 'general custom' may be made to Ujagar Singh (supra),
and Bawa v. Taro, AIR (1951) Punjab 239.

20. In Harcharan Singh v. Mohinder Kaur, AIR (1987) P&H 138.
Paragraph 22 of the Rattingan's Digest was noticed, holding that in terms
thereof there is a custom in Punjab to the effect that in default of male lineal
H
ASS KAUR (DECEASED) BY L.RS. v. KARTAR SINGH (DEAD) BY L.RS. [S.B. SINHA, J.) 681

descendants and of a widow the mother of the deceased succeeds to a life A
interest, provided she had not remarried. It reads as under :

"22. In default of male lineal descendants and of a widow the mother
of the deceased succeeds to a life interest, provided she has not
remarried."
B
21. In Chunnilal (supra), Lahore High Court observed :

"Where a person dies leaving two widows and one of them
t
remarries the whole estate of the deceased passes to the other widow
and the mere retention of the re-married widow's name in the revenue
records would not place her in adverse possession of her share qua C
the co-widows and owing to her intervening between the estate and
the reversioner the latter's rights would not be affected."

22. The learned trial Judge categorically held that Relu Singh belonged
to Sidhu Jats of Muktsar Tehsil, who were governed by Zimindara custom,
stating : D
" .... Since the property was ancestral according to para 13 of the
Digest of customary law on the death of one of the two co-widows
the survivor took the entire estate by survivorship. Raj Kaur was
therefore entitled to succeed to the estate of Sobhi by the rule of
survivorship to the exclusion of the plaintiff' E
23. Para 13 of the said Digest reads as under :

"13 On the death of one of two co-widows the survivor takes by
survivorship, even if she has remarried by Karewa, provided such re-
marriage has not caused a forfeiture of her own share." F
24. Rattigan's Digest was also referred to by this Court in Daya Singh
(Dead) through L.Rs. and Anr. v. Dhan Kaur .AIR (1974) SC 665: [1974] 1
sec 700, but therein again existence of such a custom had not been proved.
It is no doubt true that if the 1929 Act applies, the appellant would succeed
. to the interest of her brother after her mother's death; but the said Act of G
1929 is also subject to applicability of customary law.

25. As· statutory law did not exclude the applicability of the customary
law, customary law would prevail over the statutory law. It was so found by
the courts below.
682 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2007) 7 S.C.R.

A 26. A serious contention was raised that the validity of customs must
be judged on the touchstone of justice, equity and good conscience. No
such contention had been raised before the learned Trial Judge or before the
High Court. It is one thing to say that customary law had no application or
the custom had not been proved; but it is another thing to say despite its
acceptance and proof the same should not be applied on the ground of
B equity, justice and good conscience. We, therefore, cannot go into such a
contention.

27. No contention had also been raised before the courts below that the
custom in question is not a special or local custom, but merely a general
C custom. Such a contention again call!lot be allowed to be raised for the first
tune before this Court particularly in view of the fact that they have categorically
held that the Jats are governed by customary law; the principle being 'keeping
of the property within the family'.

28. Raj Kaur, who was a widow of Hira Singh, was married to another
D brother just to sJfeguard the family property. She succeeded under the
customary laws to her husband after the death of her co-widow. In that view
of the matter, if the daughters who were married were to be excluded by
customary law, no exception thereto can be taken.

29. In Daya Singh (dead) through L.Rs. (supra), paragraph 23 of
E Rattingan's Digest of Customary Law of Punjab has been noticed. It was
held:

"It is on the basis of this Customary Law that the reversioners
succeeded in the suit filed by them questioning the gift made by the
respondents mother to her. There is no doubt that Rattigans work is
F an authoritative one on the subject of Customary Law in Punjab. This
Court in Mahant Salig Ram v. Musammat Maya Devi, said:

The customary rights of succession of daughters as against the
collaterals of the father with reference to ancestral and non-ancestral
lands are stated in para 23 of Rattigans Digest of Cu.<1tomary Law. It
G is categorically stated in sub-para (2) of that paragraph that the
daughter succeeds to the self-acquired property of the father in
preference to the collaterals even though they are within the fourth
degree. Rattigans work has been accepted by the Privy Council as a
book of un4uestioned authority in the Punjab. Indeed, the correctness r
H of this para was not disputed before this Court in Gopal Singh v.
ASSKAUR(DECEASED)BYL.RS. v. KARTARSINGH(DEAD)BYL.RS. [S.B. SINHA,J.) 683

Ujagar Singh " A
30. However, therein the customary law was not applied in view of the
application of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

31. We may furthermore notice that the customary law has been
specifically been excluded in terms of Section 4 of the Hindu Succession Act, B
1956. If the intention of the makers of the statute in the 1929 was to
completely exclude the applicability of the customary law, it would have been
i
said so explicitly.

32. Reliance has been placed on Smt. Dipo v. Wasson Singh and Ors.,
[1983] 3 sec 376, wherein the sister was held to be a preferential heir as it c
was found that the entire property was an ancestral property, stating :

" .... We also proceed on the basis that according to the prevailing
custom of the area, collaterals and not the sister are preferential heirs
to ancestral property in the hands of a propositus, while the sister and
not the collateral is a preferential heir in regard to non-ancestral D
property. We must add here that we are not quite satisfied that the
custom has been properly established, but for the purposes of the
present case, we proceed on the basis that the custom has been
established. But that is not the end of the problem before us. No
doubt the properties which have been found by the lower courts to
E
be ancestral properties in the hands of Bua Singh are properties which
originally belonged to Bua Singhs ancestors. But Bua Singh was the
last male holder of the property and he had no male issue. There was
no surviving member of a joint family, be it a descendant or otherwise,
who could take the property by survivorship. Property inherited from
paternal ancestors is, of course, ancestral property as regards the F
male issue of the propositus, but it is his absolute property and not
ancestral property as regards other relations. In Mui/as Principles of
Hindu Law (15th Edn.), it is stated at p. 289:
... if A inherits property, whether movable or immovable, from
his father or fathers father, or fathers fathers father, it is ancestral G
property as regards his male issue. If A has no son, sons son,
or sons sons son in existence at the time when he inherits the
I property, he holds the property as absolute owner thereof, and
he can deal with it as he pleases. . . .

•• • H
684 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007) 7 S.C.R.

A A person inheriting property from his three immediate paternal ., ...,--
ancestors holds it, and must h~ld it, in coparcenary with his sons,
sons sons and sons sons sons, but as regards other relations he
holds it, and is entitled to hold it, as his absolute property. Again at
p. 291, it is stated:
.
B The share which a coparcener obtains on partition of ancestral
property is ancestral property as regards his male issue. They
take an interest in it by birth, whether they are in existence at the
time of partition or are born subsequently. Such share, however, -r
is ancestral property only as regards his male issue. As regards
other relations, it is separate property, and ifthe coparcener dies
c without leaving male issue, it passes to his heirs by succession.

3. We are, therefore, of the view that the lower courts were wrong in
refusing to grant a decree in favour of the plaintiff as regards property
described by, t})em as ancestral property. The defendants were
•,.
collaterals of Bua Singh and as regards them the property was not
D ancestral property and hence the plaintiff was the preferential heir.
The plaintiff was entitled to a decree in respect of all the plaint
,,
properties....

33. There is no dispute in regard to the aforementioned proposition of
law. To the same effect is the· decision of this Court in Dharma Shamrao
E
Agalawe v. Pandurang Mircgu Agalawe and Ors., [1988) 2 SCC 126 and
Sheela Devi and Ors. v. Lal Chand & Anr., (2006) 10 SCALE 75. The said
decisions, however, for the reasons stated hereinbefore, have no application
in the fact of the present case.

F 34. For the reasons aforementioned, the appe11l being devoid of any
merit is dismissed. However, in the facts and circums.tances of the case, there
f-
shall be no. order as to costs.

NJ. • Appeal dismissed.

f