JAI KAUR Vs. SHER SINGH
LAWS(SC)-1960-5-7
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
Decided on May 06,1960

JAI KAUR Appellant
VERSUS
SHER SINGH Respondents





Cited Judgements :-

SALIG RAM VS. MUNSHI RAM [LAWS(SC)-1961-3-38] [REFERRED TO]
KEHAR SINGH VS. DEWAN SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1966-1-30] [REFERRED]
LALU JELA VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1961-11-6] [REFERRED TO]
JONNALAGADDA MANDESWARUDU VS. JONNALAGADDA VENKATRAMAYYA [LAWS(APH)-1965-8-34] [REFERRED TO]
NARINDI MAHALAKSHMAIAH VS. KOMATI BASAVAMRNA [LAWS(APH)-1983-11-12] [REFERRED TO]
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER CUM REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER CHEVELLA VS. MEKALA PANDU [LAWS(APH)-2002-7-37] [REFERRED TO]
TRILOCHAN CHOUDHURY VS. DAYANIDHI PATRA [LAWS(ORI)-1960-12-14] [REFERRED TO]
PHILIP JEYASINGH VS. JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CHIDAMBARANAR REGION TUTICORIN [LAWS(MAD)-1992-1-14] [REFERRED TO]
G WILSON VS. STELLA MARY JOY [LAWS(MAD)-1999-12-73] [REFERRED TO]
JAGATJIT DISTILLING AND ALLIED INDUSTRIES LTD VS. DEPUTY CUSTODIAN GENERAL INDIA [LAWS(P&H)-1963-1-4] [REFERRED TO]
SADA KAUR VS. BAKHTAWAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1969-11-5] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH GILL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-1981-8-9] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM KAUR VS. SURJIT SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1983-10-3] [REFERRED TO]
HARCHAND SINGH VS. MOHINDER KAUR [LAWS(P&H)-1986-9-9] [REFERRED TO]
SADA KAUR VS. BAKHTAWAR SINGH [LAWS(SC)-1980-7-4] [RELIED ON]
MAHENDRAKUMAR CHANDULAL VS. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA [LAWS(GJH)-1983-3-13] [REFERRED TO]
SHARDULBHAI LAKHMANBHAI PANCHOLI VS. STATE OF GUJARAT [LAWS(GJH)-1989-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
SANTA SINGH GOPAL SINGH VS. RAJINDER SINGH BUR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1965-3-6] [REFERRED TO]
DEONARAYAN SINGH VS. COMMR OF BHAGALPUR DIVISION [LAWS(PAT)-1984-8-7] [REFERRED TO]
DELHI CLOTH AND GENERAL MILLS CO LTD VS. AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE [LAWS(PAT)-1992-3-10] [REFERRED TO]
SARDOOL SINGH VS. HARI SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1966-11-3] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF ORISSA VS. ALL ORISSA PRIVATE SECONDARY TRAINING SCHOOLS MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION [LAWS(ORI)-2010-10-5] [REFERRED TO]
ANISURRAHMAN VS. SARDAR JOGENDER SINGH [LAWS(PAT)-1992-8-33] [REFERRED TO]
KANWAR KHAN VS. KHATONI [LAWS(P&H)-2005-3-80] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT VS. GORDHANDAS KESHAVJI GANDHI [LAWS(GJH)-1961-10-21] [REFERRED TO]
TIKKA SHATRUJIT SINGH VS. BRIG. SUKHJIT SINGH [LAWS(DLH)-2010-11-286] [REFERRED TO]
BATTO AND ORS. VS. SMT. PUNIAN [LAWS(P&H)-1969-10-24] [REFERRED TO]
LACHHMAN AND OTHERS VS. AMAR SINGH AND OTHERS [LAWS(P&H)-1964-9-28] [REFERRED TO]
PRITAM SINGH GILL VS. STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1982-1-44] [REFERRED TO]
RAM SAGAR PANDEY AND ANOTHER VS. THE ANCHAL ADHIKARI AND OTHERS [LAWS(PAT)-1986-9-59] [REFERRED TO]
NARAYAN NATHUJI VS. BRIJMOHAN HARIDAS AND ANOTHER [LAWS(BOM)-1964-11-10] [REFERRED TO]
SNEH KOHLI VS. UNIVERSAL ENGLISH TRUST & ANR [LAWS(BOM)-2016-10-48] [REFERRED TO]
INDO UNIQUE FLAME LTD VS. KARNATAKA POWER [LAWS(KAR)-2020-4-26] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Das Gupta, J. - (1.)The suit out of which this appeal has arise was instituted by the respondents 1 and 2, Sher Singh and Labh Singh for a declaration that a deed of gift executed by the first appellant Jai Kaur in respect of 8 (1-10) Bighas of land which she had inherited from her husband Dev Singh in in favour of her two daughters the 2nd and 3rd appellants before us "shall be null and void against the reversionary rights of the plaintiff's," and defendants Nos. 4 to 6 after the death of defendant No. 1 (i.e. Jai Kaur) and shall not be binding upon them. The plaintiff's case was that these lands left by Dev Singh, were all ancestral lands qua the plaintiffs and according to the customary law which governs the Jats belonging to Grewal Jats to which these parties belong daughters do not succeed to property left by sonless fathers and so the gift by Deva Singh's widow in favour of her daughters would be null and void as against the plaintiffs and others who would be entitled on Jai Kaur's death of succeed to the estate as reversioners. In the alternative, the plaintiffs contended that even if the land in suit was not ancestral qua the plaintiffs then also the deed of gift would be null and void as against their reversionary interests inasmuch as even as regards non-ancestral property daughters do not succeed among the Grewal Jats. The main contention of defendants 1 to 3 (the appellants before us) was that the suit land was not ancestral qua the plaintiffs and defendants Nos. 4 to 6, and that according to the customary law governing the Jats of the Grewal Jats, daughters exclude collaterals as regards non-ancestral property and a widow is competent to make a gift of such property in favour of her daughters. It was pleaded on behalf of the two daughters that they being preferential heirs in respect of the land in suit as against the plaintiffs, the gift is tantamount to acceleration of succession and is valid in every way. The trial Judge held that 2D-2B-14-B out of the land in suit was ancestral and the gift was invalid to that extent, because as regards ancestral property a daughter does not succeed in the presence of collaterals. As regards the remainder of the suit land which he held was non-ancestral, the learned Judge was of opinion that the gift was merely an acceleration of succession as under the customary law governing the parties daughters exclude collaterals as regards succession to non-ancestral property. Accordingly he gave the plaintiffs a decree as prayed for as regards 2-B-2B, 14-B out of the land in suit and dismissed it as regards the remaining portion of the land in suit.
(2.)The plaintiffs appealed to the district Judge, Ludhiana against this decree and cross-objections were filed by the defendants Nos. 1 to 3. The trial Court's finding about a portion of the land being ancestral and the rest non-ancestral was not disputed before the appeal court. On the question of custom the learned District Judge agreed with the trial Judge's view that among the Grewal Jats of Ludhiana the daughter excluded collaterals as regards non-ancestral property. He held therefore agreeing with the trial Judge that as regards the non-ancestral property the deed of gift was merely an act of acceleration of succession and was therefore valid and binding. The appeal was accordingly dismissed and so also were the cross-objections which appear not to have been pressed.
(3.)On second appeal the learned judges of the East Punjab High Court accepted the contention urged on behalf of the plaintiffs that a special custom was proved to be in force among the Grewal Jats under which the daughter does not inherit even as regards non-ancestral property. In that view they held that even as regards the non-ancestral property the gift by Jai Kaur would be valid only during her life-time, and allowed the appeal.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.