Case ID: 89

Judgment:
Civil Appeal No. 158 of 1951. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated 24th March	 1948	 of the High Court of Punjab at Simla (Teja Singh and Khosla JJ.) in Regular First Appeal No. 133 of 1945 arising out of judgment and decree dated 25th November	 1944	 of the Court of the Senior Subordinate Judge	 Kangra	 at Dharmsala in Suit No. 86 of 1	943. Daryadatta Chawla for the appellant. Gurbachan Singh (Jindra Lat	 with him) for the respond ent. 1952. May 16. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by FAZL ALl J. This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Punjab at Simla reversing the judgment and decree of the Senior Subordinate Judge of Kangra in a suit instituted by the appellant for a declara tion that he was the sole lawful heir of one Musammat Ram Piari	 whom he alleged to be his wife	 and as such was entitled to the properties left by her	 and for possession of those properties. The suit was instituted against 2 persons	 namely	 Parvin Kumari	 who was alleged to be the daughter of the plaintiff by Ram Piari	 and Shrimati Raj Kumari	 who were respectively impleaded as defendants Nos. 1 and 2. The case of the plaintiff as set out in the plaint was that he was married to Ram Piari	 the daughter of an employ ee of Raj Kumari (defendant No. 2) about 22 years before the institution of the suit	 that after marriage she lived with him at Hoshiarpur and gave birth to a daughter	 Parvin Kumari (defendant No. 1)	 on the 4th March	 1929	 and that Ram Piari died in 828 April	 1941	 leaving both movable and immovable properties which she had acquired in her own name with the aid of his money and which had been taken possession of by Raj Kumari. He further alleged that he was a Rajput by caste belonging to tehsil Garhshankar in the district of Hoshiarpur	 and was governed by custom in matters of succession	 and	 according to that custom	 he	 as the husband of the deceased Ram Piari	 was entitled to the movable and immovable properties left by her to the exclusion of Parvin Kumari	 her daughter. The suit was contested by both Parvin Kumari and Raj Kumari	 and both of them denied that the appellant had been married to Ram Piari. Their case was that the proper ties in suit were acquired by Raj Kumari with her own money for Ram Piari	 that the latter had made a will bequeathing them to her daughter	 Parvin Kumari	 that the appellant was not governed by custom	 and that in any event the alleged custom could not apply to the personal and self . acquired property of Ram Piari	 As regards 2 cars which were also included in the list of properties claimed in the plaint	 the case of Raj Kumari was that they belonged to her and that the deceased was only a benamidar. The trial court decreed the plaintiff 's suit with re spect to all the properties excepting the 2 cars which were held to belong to Raj Kumari. The court held that Ram Piari was the legally married Wife of the appellant	 that he was governed by customary law applicable to Rajputs of Hoshiar pur district in matters of succession	 and that according to that customary law he was the preferential heir to the estate of Ram Piari. The court further held that the will of Ram Piari was invalid as she had no power under the customary law to make a will. Both the defendants appealed to the High Court against the judgment of the trial court	 and the appeal was ulti mately allowed and the plaintiffs suit was dismissed. The High Court held that though there 829 was evidence of long cohabitation of the plaintiff and Ram Piari giving rise to a presumption of marriage	 yet that presumption had been completely rebutted and the proper conclusion to be arrived at on the evidence on record was that the plaintiff had not been able to prove that Ram Piari was his lawfully wedded wife. As to custom	 the findings of the High Court were as follows : (1) that the appellant belonged to an agricultural tribe of Hoshiarpur district and was therefore governed by the custom prevailing among the Rajputs of that district; (2) that there was no local or general custom allowing the plaintiff to succeed in preference to the daughter to the property left by Ram Piari which had been given to her by a stranger	 namely	 Raj Kumari	 and (3) that the parties were governed by Hindu law under which Parvin Kumari being the daughter of Ram Piari was entitled to succeed to the properties left by the latter in preference to the plaintiff. Against the decision of the High Court	 the plaintiff has now preferred this appeal	 after obtaining a certificate from the High Court under sections 109 and 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The first question which arises in this appeal is wheth er the plaintiff has succeeded in proving that Ram Piari was his legally wedded wife. The plaintiff was admittedly em ployed as a copyist in the District Judge 's court at Hoshi arpur and was living in that town. His case was that he gained the acquaintance of Raj Kumari (defendant No. 2)	 a wealthy lady of Kangra district who owned a tea estate in tehsil Palampur and occasionally visited Hoshiarpur	 and through her good offices was married to Ram Piari	 who was the daughter of one Chandar Bit	 an employee of Raj Kumari working in her tea estate. After marriage	 Ram Piari lived with the plaintiff at Hoshiarpur as his lawfully wedded wife	 and a daughter	 Parvin Kumari	 (also called Usha Rani) was born to 830 them on the 4th March	 1929. Raj Kumari had great attachment to wards Ram Piari and often used to pay visits to Hoshiar pur to meet her. In the year 1934 35 (no date is mentioned in the plaint; but this year is mentioned in the plain tiff 's evidence)	 Raj Kumari took Ram Piari from the plain tiff 's house with belongings of every description on the pretext of taking her out for recreation. Ram Piari did not like going round with Raj Kumari and though she wanted to come back to the plaintiff she had not the courage to diso bey Raj Kumari	 and in fact Ram Piari and ' Raj Kumari in wardly hated one another during the last years of the for mer 's life. In the year 1941	 Ram Piari died at Mayo Hospi tal at Lahore	 leaving the properties in dispute which had been acquired by her by good management with the plaintiff 's own money. As against this version of the. plaintiff	 the case of Raj Kumari was that Ram Piari had been enticed away by a motor driver sometime in 1921	 that she returned to Holta estate after about 11 years with Parvin Kumari who was then about 3 years old	 and after her return both she and her daughter remained with her (Raj Kumari) till Ram Piari died in 1941. Raj Kumari	 being a widow	 felt very lonely and so brought up Ram Piari as a companion and all the properties in dispute had been acquired by her with her own money for the benefit of Ram Piari Parvin Kumari had been educated and brought up at her expense	 and it was entirely false that she and Ram Piari inwardly hated each other	 the truth being that they liked and were attached to each other. The evidence adduced by the plaintiff to prove that Ram Piari was his lawfully wedded wife consists partly of the evidence of a number of witnesses and partly of circumstan tial evidence. The direct evidence of marriage is furnished by Babu Ram	 P. W. 7	 Anant Ram	 P.W. 11	 Babu	 P.W. 12	 and Asa Ram	 P.W. 13. Babu Ram claims to be the family priest and alleges to have officiated as priest at the time of the plaintiff 's marriage	 Anant Ram and Asa Ram are 831 jaswal Rajputs residing in village Bham	 which is near the plaintiff 's village	 Ajnoha	 and Babu is a barber. These four persons have said that they accompanied the marriage party and that the marriage of the plaintiff with Ram Piari was celebrated in their presence. The evidence of the other witnesses and the circumstantial evidence upon which reli ance has been placed by the plaintiff have been summarized by the learned Subordinate Judge in his judgment in these words : "P. W. 5 Mukhi Ram is a Municipal Commissioner at Hoshi arpur. P.W. 4 Doctor Shadi Lal is a leading Medical Practi tioner of Hoshiarpur. P.W. 9 Lala Sham Lal and P.W. 10 Lala Har Narain have been co employees with the plaintiff in the same office; though these persons (except P.W. 9) have no social relations with the plaintiff and his family	 yet they have been seeing Ram Piari living with plaintiff as his wife. She was proclaimed as such by the plaintiff and both of them were treated as husband and wife by the people of the Mohalla and by the brotherhood in the village of plain tiff. Exhibits P 18 and P 19 show that defendant No. 2 has been addressing Ram Piari	 care of plaintiff in 1932 and has been receiving correspondence	 care of the plaintiff which shows that she approved of the plaintiff 's alliance with Ram Piari . Paras Ram	 a younger brother of Ram Piari	 lived in the house of Gokal Chand and it is in evidence that he used to address the plaintiff as jija a common name for sister 's husband. From 1930 to 1934 Paras Ram read in the D.A.V. High School at Hoshiarpur and Exhibits P.W. 6/1 to 6 are copies of entries in the registers of the school regard ing applications which were given by Gokal Chand	 plaintiff	 for admission of his ward Paras Ram	 son of Chandar Bit who was described as his sala (wife 's brother). P.W. 6 Lala Bishan Das	 teacher	 has filed these copies. His sister 's house was adjacent to the house of the plaintiff and he had occasions to see Ram Piari living and being treated as wife by the plaintiff during those years. " 108 832 Upon the evidence to which reference has been made	 the trial court came.to the conclusion that Ram Piari was the legally married wife of the appellant. The learned judges of the High Court however found the evidence of the 4 witnesses who claimed to have been present at the marriage of the plaintiff to be quite uncon vincing	 and they pointed out that the case of the plaintiff being that his marriage had been performed with great pomp and show	 it was surprising that the evidence relating to it should be confined to 4 persons one of whom appeared to be a hired witness ' and the other 3 were interested persons. As to the evidence of the 4 persons who claim to have been present at the plaintiff 's marriage	 we find ourselves in agreement with the view taken by the High Court. The evidence of the other witnesses undoubtedly establishes the fact that for some years the plaintiff and Ram Piari lived together as husband and wife and were treated as such	 that Paras Ram	 brother of Ram Piari	 addressed the plaintiff as jija (a common name for sister 's husband)	 and that the plaintiff acted as Paras Ram 's guardian when the latter was admitted to D.A.V. School and was described as his brother in law in some of the entries in the school register. The learned Judges of the High Court considered that the evi dence of certain witnesses who deposed to some of the facts on which the lower court relied	 did not strictly comply with the requirements of section 50 of the Indian Evidence Act	firstly because the witnesses had no special means of knowledge on the subject of relationship between the plain tiff and Ram Piari	 and secondly because what section 50 made relevant was not mere opinion but opinion "expressed by conduct" of persons who as members of the family or other wise	 had special means of knowledge. It seems to us that the question as to how far the evidence of those particular witnesses is relevant under section 50 is academic	 because it is well settled that continuous cohabitation for a number of years may raise the presumption of marriage. In the present case	 it seems clear that the plaintiff and Ram Piari 833 lived and were treated as husband and wife for a number of years	 and	 in the absence of any material pointing to the contrary conclusion a presumption might have been drawn that they were lawfully married. But the presumption which may be drawn from long cohabitation is rebuttable	 and if there are circumstances which weaken or destroy that presumption	 the court cannot ignore them. We agree with the learned Judges of the High Court that in the present case	 such circumstances are not wanting	 and their cumulative effect warrants the conclusion that the plaintiff has failed to prove the factum of his marriage with Ram Piari. In the first place	 the plaintiff has not examined any of his near relations such as his brother	 or collaterals living in Ajnoha	 or any co villagers	 whose presence at the marriage would have been far more probable than the presence of the witnesses examined by him. He has also not examined any of the witnesses residing in or round about Holta estate in spite of the fact that his own case is that the marriage was celebrated with great pomp and show. was suggested in the courts below that since defendant No. 2 is an influen tial person	 no local witnesses would be available to sup port the plaintiff 's case	 but the High Court has very fully dealt with this aspect and pointed out firstly that Raj Kumari had litigation with a number of persons belonging to Palampur and such persons would not be under her influence	 and secondly that no gold reason has been shown why Raj Kumari	 who is alleged to have brought about the marriage between the plaintiff and Ram Hari	 should take a completely hostile attitude towards him. Then again	 neither the parents nor any of the relations of Ram Piari have been examined to support the plaintiff. On the other hand	 Ram Hari 's own mother	 Ganga	 has deposed that the former was never married to the plaintiff	 and the statement made by Ram Piari in her will	 which is a very valuable piece of evidence	 is to the same effect. It is also in credible that in spite of the love which Ram Piari is said to have had for the plaintiff	 she left him 834 and went away to live with Raj Kumari	 and that during the long period when Ram Piari was away	 the plaintiff should never have visited her or made enquiries about her and his alleged daughter	 Parvin Kumari. This is all the more strange	 since it is stated by the plaintiff that Ram Piari continued to love him and that she and Raj Kumari inwardly hated each other. Parvin Kumari says in her deposition that she had never seen her father and that when she reached the age of discretion she found herself living at Palampur. The conduct of the plaintiff in showing such complete indiffer ence to his wife and daughter as is disclosed in his evi dence is most unnatural	 and no less unnatural is his con duct in instituting a suit to deprive her of properties which had come into her hands not by reason of anything done by him but as a result of the generosity shown towards her by a stranger. The plaintiff 's case that the properties in dispute were acquired by Ram Piari with the aid of his money is wholly untrue	 and it has been rightly found by both the courts that they were acquired for her by Raj Kumari. The plaintiff 's witnesses have tried to exaggerate his means to support his case	 but the truth appears to be that he had hardly any means of his own beyond the somewhat meagre salary which he used to draw as a court typist. Several of the witnesses including an Advocate and Ram Piari 's own mother have deposed that Ram Piari had eloped with a driver and had remained away from Holta estate for a number of years. Even the Subordinate Judge has not reject ed the story of elopement	 and though there is no reliable evidence as to when and how she met the plaintiff	 the possibility of her having lived with him for some years even though they were not legally married	 cannot be ruled out. The plaintiff claims to be a Rajput of high caste	 and it appears to us rather unusual that he should not marry in his own tribe but should take in marriage a Gurkha girl who was born of very poor parents and belonged to a place far away from where he himself lived. 835 The fact that Paras Ram lived with the plaintiff for some time and addressed the latter as jija	 and that the plaintiff described himself as guardian and brother in law of Paras Ram	 is as consistent with the defence version as with the plaintiff 'section If Paras Ram 's parents had been in affluent circumstances so as to be able to maintain and educate him	 the case would have been different	 but there is evidence to show that Chandar Bir was very poor and both his wife and daughter had to work as servants of Raj Kumari to earn their living. In our opinion	 the conclusion arrived at by the High Court has not been shown by the plaintiff to be incorrect	 and whatever the true facts may be	 we are compelled to hold that in the present state of evidence the plaintiff has not succeeded in establishing that Ram Piari was his legally wedded wife. In the view we have taken	 it is not necessary to deal with the question whether succession to the properties in dispute will be governed by customary law or by Hindu law	 but since it was argued before us at very great length	 we think that we might state the contentions of the parties and the difficulties which in our opinion arise in dealing with those contentions on the material before us. Before doing so	 however	 we wish to set out briefly certain gener al principles which we think should be kept in view in dealing with questions of customary law. They may be summa rized as follows : (1) It should be recognized that many of the agricul tural tribes in the Punjab are governed by a variety of customs	 which depart from the ordinary rules of Hindu and Muhammadan law	 in regard to inheritance and other matters mentioned in section 5 of ' the . (2) In spite of the above fact	 there is no presumption that a particular person or class of persons is governed by custom	 and a party who is alleged to be governed by custom ary law must prove that he is so governed and must also prove the existence of the 836 custom set up by him. See Daya Ram vs Sohel Singh and Others (1)	 Abdul Hussein Khan vs Bibi Song Dero C). (3) A custom	 in order to be binding	 must derive its force from the fact that by long usage it has obtained the force of law	 but the English rule that "a custom	 in order that it may be legal and binding	 must have been used so long that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary" should not be strictly applied to Indian conditions. All that is necessary to prove is that the usage has been acted upon in practice for such a long period and with such invar iability as to show that it has	 by common consent	 been submitted to as the established governing rule of a particu lar locality. See Mr. Subhani vs Nawab(3). (4) A custom may be proved by general evidence as to its existence by members of the tribe or family who would natu rally be cognizant of its existence and its exercise without controversy	 and such evidence may be safely acted on when it is supported by a public record of custom such as the Riwaj i am or Manual of Customary Law. See Abroad Khan vs Mt. Channi Bibi(4). (5) No statutory presumption attaches to the contents of a Riwaj i am or similar compilation	 but being a public record prepared by a public officer in the discharge of his duties under Government rules	 the statements to be found therein in support of custom are admissible to prove facts recited therein and will generally be regarded as a strong piece of evidence of the custom. The entries in the Riwaj i am may however be proved to be incorrect	 and the quantum of evidence required for the purpose of rebutting them will vary with the circumstances of each case. The presumption of correctness attaching to a Riwaj i am may be rebutted	 if it is shown that it affects adversely the rights of females or any other class of persons who had no opportunity of appearing before the revenue authorities. See Beg vs Allah Ditta (5)	 Saleh (1) 110 P.R. (1906) 390 at 410 (4) A.I.R. 1925 P.C. 267 at 271. (2) LR. 45 I.A. 10. (5) A.I.R. 1916 P.C. 129 at 131. (3) A.I.R. 1941 P.C. 21 at 32. 837 Mohammad vs Zawar Hussain(1);Mt. Subhani vs Nawab(2). (6) When the question of custom applicable to an agri culturist is raised	 it is open *to a party who denies the application of custom to show that the person who claims to be governed by it has completely and permanently drifted away from agriculture and agricultural associations and settled for good in urban life and adopted trade	 service	 etc.	 as his principal occupation and means and source of livelihood	 and does not follow other customs applicable to agriculturists. See Muhammad Hayat Khan vs Sandhe Khan and Others(3)	 Muzaffar Muhammad vs Imam Din(4). (7) The opinions expressed by the compiler of a Riwaj i am or Settlement Officer as a result of his intimate knowledge and investigation of the subject	 are entitled to weight which will vary with the circumstances of each case. The only safe rule to be laid down with regard to the weight to be attached to the compiler 's remarks is that if they represent his personal opinion or bias and detract from the record of long standing custom	 they will not be sufficient to displace the custom	 but if they are the result of his inquiry and investigation as to the scope of the applicabil ity of the custom and any special sense in which the expo nents of the custom expressed themselves in regard to it	 such remarks should be given due weight. See Narain Singh vs Mt. Basant Kaur(5)	 Mt. Chinto vs Thelur (6); Khedam Hussain vs Mohammad Hussain(7). Bearing these principles in mind	 the difficulty which appears to us to beset the case of the plaintiff may be briefly stated as follows : The basis of the plaintiff 's case is that the custom by which he claims to be governed is a "zamindara custom" and he is governed by it by reason of his belonging to a family of agriculturists. From the evidence	 however	 it appears that he Had sold most	 if not (1)A.I.R.1944 P.C.18. (5) A.I.R. 1935 Lab. 419 at 421	 422. (2) A.I.R. 1941 P.C. 21 at 25. (6) A.I.R. 1985 Lah. (5)55 P.R. (1906) 270 at 274. (7) A.I.R. 1941 Lah. 73 at 79 (4) I.L.R. 	 125. 838 all	 of his property in the village to which he belonged	 that his ancestors were bankers or sahukars	 that his father was a clerk of a lawyer practising in Hoshiarpur district and that he himself was a clerk in the District Judge 's court at Hoshiarpur and lived there	 and there is hardly any evidence to show that any of his relations was dependent on agriculture or that he maintained connection with them. In our opinion. the witnesses of the plaintiff have tried to grossly exaggerate his pecuniary means and have not given a correct picture on which the answer to the question as to whether he would still be governed by the old custom would depend. Again	 though according to the answer to question 11 in the Riwaj i am of Hoshiarpur district	 the general custom governing the Rajputs of that district would seem to be that a marriage within the tribe only is lawful	 the plaintiff did not marry a Rajput of his district but is said to have married a Gurkha woman	 about whose caste and char acter the evidence is conflicting	 and whose family was admittedly not governed by the "Riwaj iam" upon which the plaintiff relies. If both the husband and the wife are shown to belong to the same tribe and to be governed by the same custom	 then the difficulty in deciding what would be the rule of succession on the death of the wife in regard to the wife 's self acquired property may not be very great. But even if it be assumed that Ram Piari was lawfully married to the plaintiff	 the serious question to be decided would be whether succession to the property which Ram Piari received as gift from a stranger and which she owned in her own right	 would be governed by the custom governing her hus band 's family and not her own. Such marriage as is said to have been contracted by the plaintiff being evidently an event of rare occurrence	 the rule of succession set up by him cannot be said to derive its force from long usage. As we have pointed out	 a custom in order to be binding must derive its force from the fact that by long usage it has obtained the force of law; and if an Occasion never arose to apply the rule of succession 839 invoked by the plaintiff	 to the property held by a wife in her own right	 the foundation on which custom grows would be wanting. When the matter is further probed	 it appears that the plaintiff relies not only on custom but partly on custom 'and partly on the rule of Hindu law	 namely	 that the law which governs the husband will govern the wife also. Whether the latter rule can be extended to a case like the present is a question of some difficulty	 on which	 as at present advised	 we would reserve our opinion. In the cir cumstances. we prefer to leave the issue of custom undecid ed. and base our decision on the sole ground	 which by itself is sufficient to conclude the appeal	 that the plain tiff 's marriage with Ram Piari has not been clearly estab lished. The appeal therefore fails and it is dismissed. but in the circumstances of the case and particularly since the appellant has appealed in forma pauperis	 we direct that the parties will bear their own costs in all the courts. Appeal dismissed.

Summary:
The plaintiff	 a Rajput belonging to Tehsil Garhshankar in the District of Hoshiarpur (Punjab)	 instituted a suit against the defendant for the recovery of the properties which belonged to a deceased Gurkha woman R and which she had acquired by way of gift from a stranger	 alleging that he was the lawfully wedded husband of Rand that accord ing to custom which applied to the parties with regard to succession he was entitled to succeed to the moveable and immoveable properties of R in preference to the defendant who was his daughter by R. Held	 that even if it be assumed that R was lawfully married to the plaintiff	 the question to be decided would be whether succession to property which R had received as a gilt from a stranger and which she owned in her own right would be governed by the custom governing her husband 's family and not her own. Such marriage as was alleged to have been contracted by the plaintiff being evidently an act of rare occurrence	 the rule of succession set up by the plaintiff cannot be said to derive its force from long usage and the plaintiff was not	 in any event	 entitled to succeed. Their Lordships laid down the general principles which should be kept in view in dealing with questions of custom ary law as follows: (1) It should be recognised that many of the agricultur al tribes in the Punjab are governed by a variety of cus toms	 which depart from the ordinary rules of Hindu and Muhammadan law	 in regard to inheritance and other matters mentioned in section 5 of the . (2) In spite of the above fact	 there is no presumption that a particular person or class of persons is governed by custom	 and a party who is alleged to be governed by custom ary law must prove that he is so governed and must also prove the existence of the custom set up by him. (See Daya Ram vs Sohel Singh and Others	 110 P R. (1906) 390 at 410; Abdul Hussein Khan vs Bibi Song Dero	 L.R. 45 I.A. 10). (3) A custom	 in order to be binding	 must derive its force from the fact that by long usage it has obtained the force of law	 but the English rule that "a CUstOm	 in order that it may be legal and binding	 must have been used so long that the memory of man runneth not to the contrary" should not be strictly 826 applied to Indian conditions. All that is necessary to prove is that the usage has been acted upon in practice for such a long period and with such invariability as to show that it has	 by common consent	 been submitted to as the established governing rule of a particular locality. (See Mt. Subhani vs Nawab	 A.I.R. 1941 P.C. 21 at 32). (4) A custom may be proved by general evidence as to its existence by members of the tube or family who would natur ally be cognizant of its existence and its exercise without controversy	 and such evidence may be safely acted on when it is supported by a public record of custom such as the Riwaj i am or Manual of Customary Law. (See Abroad Khan vs Mt. Channi Bibi	 A.I.R. 1925P.C. 267 at 271). (5) No statutory presumption attaches to the contents of a Riwaj i am or similar compilation	 but being a public record prepared by a public officer in the discharge of his duties under Government rules	 the statements to be found therein in support of custom are admissible to prove facts recited therein and will generally be regarded as a strong piece of evidence of the custom. The entries in the Riwaj i am may however be proved to be incorrect	 and the quantum of evidence required for the purpose of rebutting them will vary with the circumstances each case. The presumption of correctness attaching to a Riwaj i am may be rebutted	 if it is shown that it affects adversely the rights of females or any other class of persons who had no opportunity of appearing before the revenue authorities. (See Beg vs Allah Ditta	 A.I.R. 1916 P.C. 129 at 131 ;Saleh Mohammad vs Zawar Hussain A.I.R. 1944 P.C. 18; Mt. Subhani vs Nawab	 A.I.R. 1941 P.C. 21 at 25). (6)When the question of custom applicable to an agricultur ist is raised	 it is open to a party who denies the applica tion custom to show that the person who claims to be gov erned by it has completely and permanently drifted away from agriculture and agricultural associations and settled for good in urban life and adopted trade	 service	 etc.	 as his principal occupation and means and source of livelihood	 and does not follow other customs applicable to agriculturists. (See Muhammad Hayat Khan vs Sandhe Khan and Others	 55 P.R. (1906) 270 at 274; Muzaffar Muhammad vs Imam Din	 I.L.R. (1928) 9 Lab. 120	 125). (7) The opinions expressed by the compiler of a Riwaj i am or Settlement Officer as a result of his intimate knowledge and investigation of the subject	 are entitled to weight which will vary with the circumstances of each case. The only safe rule to be laid down with regard to the weight to be attached to the compiler 's remarks is that if they repre sent his personal opinion or bias and detract from the record of long standing custom	 they will not be sufficient to displace the custom	 but if they are the result of his inquiry and investigation as to the scope of the 827 applicability of the custom and any special sense in which the exponents of the custom expressed themselves in regard to it	 such remarks should be given due weight. (See Narain Singh vs Mr. Basant Kaur A.I.R. 1935 Lah. 419 at 421	422; Mr. Chinto vs Thelur	 A.I.R. 1935 Lah. 98S; Khedam Hussain vs Mohammad Hussain	 A.I.R. 1941 Lah. 73 at 79).