Skip to content


Smt. Luxmi Bai Vs. Smt. Sita Bai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCustoms
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberSecond Appeal No. 1431 of 1965
Judge
Reported inAIR1967P& H511
ActsHindu Law; Customary Law
AppellantSmt. Luxmi Bai
RespondentSmt. Sita Bai
Appellant Advocate Roop Chand and; Subhash Chand, Advs.
Respondent Advocate Harbans Lalsarin, (Sr.) Adv. and; Asha Kohli, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Cases Referred and Bhai AsuRam v. Bulaqi Das
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the..........in this 2nd appeal is between two daughters of the last male holder. smt. laxmi bai, who is the unmarried daughter, is seeking to exclude the married daughter. it is no doubt true that now smt. laxmi bai is married but at the time the succession opened, she was unmarried daughter. it was contended at the trial that the parties are aroras of multan district and governed by hindu law. the plaintiff's contention was that they were governed by custom, and the defendant's contention was that they were governed by hindu law. both the courts below. (sic)ve found that the aroras are governed by custom and that according to the answer to question 63 of h. w. emerson's customary law of multan district, both married and unmarried daughters succeed equally. in this view of the matter, the.....
Judgment:

D.K. Mahajan, J.

1. The dispute in this 2nd appeal is between two daughters of the last male holder. Smt. Laxmi Bai, who is the unmarried daughter, is seeking to exclude the married daughter. It is no doubt true that now Smt. Laxmi Bai is married but at the time the succession opened, she was unmarried daughter. It was contended at the trial that the parties are Aroras of Multan district and governed by Hindu Law. The plaintiff's contention was that they were governed by Custom, and the defendant's contention was that they were governed by Hindu Law. Both the courts below. (sic)ve found that the Aroras are governed by Custom and that according to the Answer to Question 63 of H. W. Emerson's Customary Law of Multan district, both married and unmarried daughters succeed equally. In this view of the matter, the plaintiffs' suit was decreed. The defendant, the unmarried daughter at the time when the succession opened out, lays claim in this second appeal to the whole or the father's property to the exclusion of the married daughter.

2. Mr. Roop Chand's contention was that the Custom, so far as the Aroras are concerned it not correctly recorded in Emerson's Customary Law. There are a number of instances of Aroras of Multan district given under the Ana war to Question 63. Moreover, there are decided cases that Aroras of Multan districtfollow Custom: e.g. Bahadur Chand v. Mt.Ramon Bai, AIR 1935 Lah 514 and Bhai AsuRam v. Bulaqi Das, AIR 1937 Lah 500. Apresumption of correctness attaches to the entries in the Riwaj-i-Am and that presumptionis strengthened in case the entries are supported by instances. In the present case there areinstances in support of the Custom and thoseinstances are tabulated at Nos. 2 and 3 of page301 below the Answer to Question 63 of Emerson's Customary Law of Multan district. Con sequently, I see no reason why an unmarreiddaughter among Aroras of Multan can exclude a married daughter to her father's patrimony. Mr. Roop Chand also contends that the Custom is not clear on the subject, but I am unable to agree with it for the reasons, already recorded. I would, threfore reject this appealwith no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //