K.KANNAN, J. - (1.) I . The lis and geneology 1. The plaintiffs, who were successful for securing a half share in the suit properties suffered a reversal of the decision at the appellate court. The Additional District Judge allowed the appeal of the defendants and dismissed the plaintiff's suit. The plaintiffs are the appellants before this Court.
(2.) THE suit related to the estate of Jiwan Singh. The case will have to be understood in the context of the relationship between parties and it is, therefore, immediately set forth as under: - Makhan Singh i i Jiwan Singh Narain Singh (Died prior to 1930) I _________________ I I Chand Kaur (2nd wife) Bholi (1st wife) (Died on 09.04.1978) (died in 1930) I I Gurbansi Chinti (Died on 15.02.1954) I I Harnek Singh Jagtar Singh Avtar Singh Udham Singh Bakhshish Singh Nami (defendants) (plaintiffs) II. History of previous litigation It is an admitted case that Jiwan Singh died before 1930 leaving behind two widows, namely, Bholi and Chand Kaur. The two widows held their respective widow's estate jointly and on the death of Bholi, the properties survived to Chand Kaur. Chand Kaur had made a settlement of the property that she inherited in favour of Gurbansi, her daughter on 29.06.1929. Chinti, who was the only daughter of the first wife Bholi, filed a suit impeaching the alienation as not binding on her. Jiwan Singh's brother Narayan Singh also filed a suit as a reversioner that the gift will not bind him. Both the suits were disposed of together. It was held that the gift would not bind Chinti. On an inter se dispute between Chinti and Narain Singh, it was held that the custom existing in Punjab preferred the daughter to the collateral of the deceased and upheld the claim of Chinti as a nearer reversioner.
(3.) TWO appeals had been filed before the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature of Lahore and the Division Bench held through a judgment dated 28.11.1934 that the trial Court judgment was correct that revealed a well established custom amongst Jats of Jalandhar district that a daughter excluded a nearer male collateral in succession to the self -acquired property of her father. III. Basis of the plaintiffs claim as pleaded;