Case: Sada Kaur Vs. Bakhtawar Singh and Others

The relevant facts are these. The first three respondents, Bakhtawar Singh, Jit Singh and Chand Singh, and the deceased husband of the appellant Sada Kaur were brothers. The appellants husband died sometime in the year 1937 and a few months later she married the third respondent Chand Singh who was a younger brother of her husband in Karewa form. The suit out of which this appeal arises was brought by the first two respondents, Bakhtawar Singh and Jit Singh, as plaintiffs for a declaration that they were entitled to two- third share of t he land in possession of the present appellant Sada Kaur which belonged to the appellants deceased husband. Appellant Sada Kaur and her second husband Chand Singh were impleaded as defendant Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. The plaintiffs case was that Sada Kaur having married for the second time had forfeited her interest in her deceased husbands estate. The parties are Dhaliwal Jats of Muktsar Tehsil in the Ferozepur District of Punjab. In her written statement Sada Kaur pleaded that the parties were governed by customary law and according to their custom a widow marrying her deceased husbands brother did not forfeit her interest in the estate of her deceased husband. The plaintiffs filed a replication stating that according to the custom governing Dhaliwal Jats of Tehsil Muktsar, a widow on remarrying even her deceased husbands brother forfeited her right in the estate. The only question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether there is a custom governing the parties to the suit according to which on remarriage the widow forfeits her interest in the estate of her deceased husband as claimed by the plaintiffs. The trial court declined to grant a declaration as asked for by the plaintiffs who preferred an appeal to the District Judge which was allowed. Sada Kaur took a second appeal to the High Court challenging the decision of the lower appellate court. The learned single Judge before whom the second appeal came up for hearing was inclined to accept the plaintiffs case and dismiss the appeal but felt that a Full Bench of three learned Judges of the Punjab High Court in an earlier case, Charan Singh v. Gurdial Singh(1) appeared to have taken a contrary view on the question and referred the appeal to a larger bench. A Division Bench of the High Court thereafter referred the case to a Full Bench of five Judges and it is the Judgment of this Full Bench that is under appeal before us.

Reasoning: The impugned judgment points out that as against these cases the riwaj-i-am mentions numerous instances, 59 of them relate to Jats, which support the compilers note that on remarriage, no matter whom she marries, the widow forfeits her right to her deceased husbands estate. There are also three instances wherein remarriage did not result in forfeiture of the widows right. Didar Singhs case which relates to Dhaliwal jats was of the year 1888. The impugned judgment mentions four instances from the riwaj-i-am of the years 1911-12 supporting the case of forfeiture. No in stance has been found either way relating to Dhaliwal jats of Tehsil Muktsar. However, these four instances relate to Dhaliwal jats of Tehsil Mogha which is adjacent to Muktsar. On these facts and figures gathered from the entries in the riwaj-i-am, the High Court did not find it possible to accept that there was a special custom among Dhaliwal jats of Tehsil Muktsar which permitted a widow who married her deceased husbands brother to retain her interest in her deceased husbandsreaching this conclusion the learned Judges had to deal with the earlier Full Bench decision of three Judges of the same High Court, Charan Singh v. Gurdial Singh (supra) in which the view taken by the majority, one learned Judge dissenting, is apparently in conflict with that taken in the judgment under appeal. In Charan Singhs case it was held that as regards jats governed by custom in matters of succession, a widow on remarrying her deceased husbands brother remains en titled to collateral succession in the family. The parties in that case were jats from Ambala District, and remembering that custom in Punjab often varies from district to district and tehsil to tehsil, it seems the proposition was stated too broadly in Charan Singhs case suggesting as if this was the custom among the jats in the entire State of Punjab. The basis of the decision in Charan Singhs case is a statement in Sir W. H. Rattigans Digest of Customary Law in the Punjab. The authoritative value of Rattigans compilation has been recognised by the Privy Council in Mst. Subhani v. Nawab(1) and also by this Court in Mahant Salig Ram v. Mst. Maya Devi (supra) and Jai Kaur v. Sher Singh (supra). In Jai Kaurs case however it was held that"when the custom as recorded in the riwaj-i-am is in conflict with the general custom as recorded in Rattigans Digest or ascertained otherwise, the entries in the riwaj-i-am should ordinarily prevail......"Paragraph 32 of Rattigans Digest on which Charan Singhs case relies states:"In the absence of custom, the remarriage of a widow causes a forfeiture of her life-interest in her first husbands estate which then reverts to the nearest heir of the husband".It is thus clear that there is no conflict between the statement in Rattigans Digest and the entry in riwaj-i-am as regards the general custom that remarriage of the widow entails a forfeiture of her interest in her first husbands estate. However, a number of exceptions to this general custom have also been recorded. Exception 1 which is relevant for the present purpose is as follows: "Among certain tribes a remarriage in the Karewa form with the brother of the deceased husband does not cause a forfeiture of the widows life estate in the property of her first husband." The cases cited in support of the special custom relate to Sikh jats of certain districts of Punjab, namely Sirsa, Amritsar, Ferozepur and Ludhiana. There is no mention in this catalogue of Dhaliwal jats of Tehsil Muktsar. It was for the first time in the 12th edition of Rattigans book which was published long after Sir Rattigans death, the following statement was added: "By custom among the Sikh jats of the Punjab a widow does not forfeit her life estate in her deceased husbands property by reason of her remarriage in Karewa form with her husbands brother, whether he be the sole surviving brother or there are other brothers as well of t he deceased." A decision of the Sindh Judicial Commissioners Court, Sant Singh v. Rani Bai(1), has been cited there in support of the statement. It has been pointed out very clearly by the learned Judge in his order by which he referred the ca se to a larger bench that Sant Singhs case does not lay down any such broad proposition to justify the statement added in the 12th edition of Rattigans book. The mistake results from relying on the head note of the case as appearing in the Indian Cases as also in the All India Reporter. Sant Singhs case in which the parties were Sikh jats from Jullundur District relies on a decision of the Punjab Chief Court: "In Basant v. Pratapa(2) a judgment of Punjab Chief Court, it was held that among the Sikh jats in the District of Ludhiana a widow does not forfeit her life estate in her deceased husbands property by reason of her remarriage in Karewa form with her husbands brother whether he be the sole surviving brother or there are other brothers as well of the deceased." What is found there as the custom "among the Sikh Jats in the District of Ludhiana" appears in the head notes of the two reports as the custom "among Sikh Jats in the Punjab". Clearly, the head notes are wrong and do not set out the decision correctly. That being so, it cannot be said that there is any real conflict between the riwaj-i-am and Rattigans Digest on this point. In any event the statement cannot be attributed to Sirlearned Judges of the Punjab and Haryana High Court composing the Full Bench, after a close examination of the available material on the question whether among Dhaliwal jats of Tehsil Muktsar there is a special custom which permits a widow on remarriage with her deceased husbands brother to retain her interest in the estate of the deceased, have answered the question in the negative. On the material before us we find no reason to take a different view. The facts and figures gathered from the entries in the riwaj-i-am have not been challenged by the appellant, that the statement introduced in the 12th edition of Rattigans Digest is wrong cannot also beis however no material to suggest that thein this case suffers from any such infirmity.