UJAGAR SINGH versus MST. JEO

UJAGAR SINGH versus MST. JEO

The Supreme Court held that no distinction is to be made between a general custom and other customs as far as the need for proof is concerned, and all customs must be proved unless judicially recognized. The custom stated in Rattigan's Digest excluding sisters from inheritance is not so well recognized as to be judicially noticed without further proof. As both parties failed to sufficiently establish the respective customs conclusively, and as per section 5 of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872, the personal law of the parties (Hindu law) must apply. Under Hindu law, the respondent (sister) succeeds in preference to the collateral.

Parties
Appellant: Ujagar Singh; Respondent: Mst. Jeo
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 April 1959
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Decree Dated September 8, 1952, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 327 of 1948
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
Inheritance Rights of Sisters, Proof of Custom, Judicial Notice of Custom, Preference of Collaterals Versus Sisters in Inheritance, Application of Hindu Law in Absence of Proved Custom
Customary Law Succession Hindu Law Inheritance Rights of Sisters Proof of Custom Judicial Notice of Custom Preference of Collaterals Versus Sisters in Inheritance Application of Hindu Law in Absence of Proved 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 2 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ujagar Singh

Appellant

Mst. Jeo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Decree Dated September 8, 1952, of the Punjab High Court in Civil Regular Second Appeal No. 327 of 1948

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, under the customary law of the Punjab, a sister is a preferential heir to her brother's self-acquired property over a collateral.
  2. 2 Whether the custom stated in paragraph 24 of Rattigan's Digest excluding sisters from inheritance requires proof or is entitled to judicial notice under s. 57(1) of the Evidence Act.
  3. 3 Whether, in the absence of a proved custom, the personal law (Hindu law) should apply to the parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that no distinction is to be made between a general custom and other customs as far as the need for proof is concerned, and all customs must be proved unless judicially recognized. The custom stated in Rattigan's Digest excluding sisters from inheritance is not so well recognized as to be judicially noticed without further proof. As both parties failed to sufficiently establish the respective customs conclusively, and as per section 5 of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872, the personal law of the parties (Hindu law) must apply. Under Hindu law, the respondent (sister) succeeds in preference to the collateral.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The judgment of the High Court is upheld, respondent's claim is allowed, and the respondent is entitled to the property in question as heir under Hindu law.
  • Appellant to bear costs.