GURDLT SINGH versus MST. ANGREZ KAUR ALIAS GEJ KAUR ALIAS MALAN AND OTHERS

GURDLT SINGH versus MST. ANGREZ KAUR ALIAS GEJ KAUR ALIAS MALAN AND OTHERS

The custom of divorce and remarriage among Jats of Jullundur District is proved by oral evidence and customs in surrounding districts, thus respondent No. 1's marriage to Sunder Singh is valid and she is entitled to succeed to his property.

Parties
Appellant: Gurdit Singh; Respondent: Mst. Angrez Kaur alias Gej Kaur alias Malan
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
25 April 1967
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Decree Dated August 24, 1962 of Punjab High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 843 of 1956
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Customary Divorce, Validity of Second Marriage, Succession Rights of Widow Under Custom
Customary Law Marriage Succession Customary Divorce Validity of Second Marriage Succession Rights of Widow Under Custom

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gurdit Singh

Appellant

Mst. Angrez Kaur alias Gej Kaur alias Malan

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Decree Dated August 24, 1962 of Punjab High Court in Regular Second Appeal No. 843 of 1956

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a custom exists among the Jats of Jullundur District permitting divorce by husband and remarriage of divorced wife during lifetime of first husband; Whether the evidence and authorities (Rattigan's Digest, Riwaj-i-am) substantiate existence/non-existence of such custom; Whether respondent No. 1 is entitled to succeed to the property as widow

Ratio Decidendi

The custom of divorce and remarriage among Jats of Jullundur District is proved by oral evidence and customs in surrounding districts, thus respondent No. 1's marriage to Sunder Singh is valid and she is entitled to succeed to his property.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • Respondent No. 1 entitled to succeed to property as widow.
  • No further relief granted.