{"id":71332,"date":"1955-01-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1955-01-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955"},"modified":"2016-04-26T19:30:29","modified_gmt":"2016-04-26T14:00:29","slug":"mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955","title":{"rendered":"Mahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Mahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 266, \t\t 1955 SCR (5)1191<\/div>\n
Author: S R Das<\/div>\n
Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan<\/div>\n
           PETITIONER:\nMAHANT SALIG RAM\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nMUSAMMAT MAYA DEVI.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\n21\/01\/1955\n\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBENCH:\nDAS, SUDHI RANJAN\nBHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H.\nIMAM, SYED JAFFER\n\nCITATION:\n 1955 AIR  266\t\t  1955 SCR  (5)1191\n\n\nACT:\nCustom-succession-Non-ancestral\t  property-Daughter   versus\ncollateral   within  fourth  degree-Saraswat   Brahmins\t  of\nPathankot  in the District  of\tGurdaspur-Biwaj-i-am-Entries\ntherein-Value  of -Riwaj-i-am of Gurdaspur District  of\t the\nyear  1913-Whether- a reliable document-Answer to  questions\n16 and 17-Value of.\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\nIt is now well-settled that the general custom of the Punjab\nbeing\tthat  a\t daughter  excludes  the  collaterals\tfrom\nsuccession  to the self-acquired property of her father\t the\ninitial\t onus,\ttherefore,  must, on principle,\t be  on\t the\ncollaterals to show that the general custom in favour of the\ndaughter's  succession to the self-acquired property of\t her\nfather\thas been varied by a special local custom  excluding\nthe daughter which is binding on the parties.\nIt  is\talso  well-settled that though the  entries  in\t the\nRiwaj-i-am are entitled to an initial presumption in  favour\nof their correctness irrespective of the question whether or\nnot  the custom, as recorded, is in accord with the  general\ncustom,\t the  quantum of evidence necessary  to\t rebut\tthat\npresumption   will,  however,  vary  with  the\t facts\t and\ncircumstances of each case.  Where, for instance, the Riwaj-\niam  lays  down\t a custom in  consonance  with\tthe  general\nagricultural custom of the province, very strong proof would\nbe required to displace that presumption; but where, on\t the\nother  hand,  the custom as recorded in\t the  Riwaj-i-am  is\nopposed\t to the custom generally prevalent, the\t presumption\nwill be considerably weakened, Likewise,\n1192\nwhere  the  Riwaj-i-am affects adversely the rights  of\t the\nfemales who had no opportunity whatever of appearing  before\nthe  Revenue  authorities, the presumption  will  be  weaker\nstill and only a few instances would be sufficient to  rebut\nit.\nIf  the Riwaj-i-am produced is a reliable and a\t trustworthy\ndocument, has been carefully prepared, and does not  contain\nwithin its four corners contradictory statements of  custom,\nand in the opinion of the Settlement Officer is not a record\nof the wishes of the persons appearing before him as to what\nthe  custom  should be, it would be a presumptive  piece  of\nevidence in proof of the special custom setup, which if left\nunrebutted   by\t the  daughters\t would\tlead  to  a   result\nfavourable to the collaterals.\tIf, on the other hand, it is\nnot  a\tdocument of the kind indicated above,  then  such  a\nRiwaj-i-am will have no value at all as a presumptive  piece\nof evidence.\nThe  Riwaj-i-ams of the Gurdaspur district prepared  by\t Mr.\nKennaway  in  1913 in so far as they purport to\t record\t the\nlocal  custom as to the right of the daughter to succeed  to\nthe  self-acquired property of her father are  not  reliable\nand trustworthy documents.\nThe answer to question 16 and the answer to question 17\t re-\ncorded therein do not contain the correct record of custom.\nHeld,  that the appellants collateral within fourth  degreea\nSaraswat  Brahmin of Pathankot in the district of  Gurdaspur\nhad  failed to discharge the onus that initially  rested  on\nhim  that the respondent (the daughter) was excluded by\t him\nin  respect of the nonancestral property of her\t father\t and\nthat  therefore\t no  burden  was cast  on  her\tof  adducing\nevidence of particular instances.\nThe general custom laid down in para 23 of Rattigan's Digest\nof   Customary\tLaw  that  \"a  daughter\t is   preferred\t  to\ncollaterals in regard to the self-acquired property of\ttier\nfather\" was approved by the Supreme Court.\nButta  Singh v. Mt.  Harnamon (A.I.R. 1946 Lab. 306),  Gopal\nSingh  v. Ujagar Singh<\/a> ( [1955] 1 S.C.R. 86), Mst.   Subhani\nv.  Nawab  (I.L.R. [1940] Lab. 154), Beg v.  Allah  Ditta  (\n[1916] L.R. 44 I.A. 89), Mt.  Vaishno Ditti v. Mt.  Rameshri\n( [1928] I.L.R. 10 Lab. 186; L.R. 55 I.A. 407), Khan Beg  v.\nMt.  Fateh Khatun ( [1931] I.L.R. 13 Lab. 276), Jagat  Singh\nv.  Mst.  Jiwan (A.I.R. 1935 Lab. 617), Qamar-ud-din v.\t Mt.\nFateh  Bano ([1943] I.L.R. 26 Lab. 110), Mohammad Khalil  v.\nMohammad Bakhsh (A.I.R. 1949 E.P. 252), Gurdit Singh v.\t Mt.\nMalan  ([1924]\tI.L.R. 5 Lab. 364), Kesar  Singh  v.  Achhar\nSingh  (A.I.R.<\/a>\t1936  Lab. 68), Bawa Singh  v.\tMt.   Partap\n(A.I.R. 1935 Lab. 288), Kesar Singh v. Gurnam Singh  (A.I.R.<\/a>\n1935  Lab. 696), Najju v. Mt.  Aimna Bibi (A.I.R. 1936\tLab.\n493),  Gurdit Singh v. Mt.  Man Kaur (A.I.R.<\/a> 1937 Lab.\t90),\nLabh v. Mt.  Fateh Bibi (A.I.R. 1910 Lab. 436), Ramzan\tShah\nv. Sohna Shah ([1889] 24 P.R. 191), Nanak Chand v. Basheshar\nNath ( [1908] 43 P.R. 15) and Mt.  Massan v. Sawan Mal (A-I-\nR. 1935 Lab. 453), referred to,\n1193\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 118 of 1953.
\nAppeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 28th July 1949
\nof  the High Court of Judicature for the State of Punjab  at
\nSimla in Civil Regular First Appeal No. 365 of 1946  arising
\nout of the Decree dated the 31st day of October 1946 of\t the
\nCourt of the SubJudge, 1st Class, Pathankot in Suit No.\t 110
\nof 1945.\n<\/p>\n
Rajinder Narain, for the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
K.   L. Gosain (R.  S. Narula and Naunit Lal, with him), for
\nthe respondent.\n<\/p>\n
1955.  January 21.  The Judgment of the Court was  delivered
\nby
\nDAS  J.-This is an appeal by the plaintiff in a suit  for  a
\ndeclaration of his title as collateral within’ four  degrees
\nof Gurdial, who was a Sarswat Brahmin, resident of Pathankot
\nin the district of Gurdaspur and the last male holder of the
\nproperties in suit.\n<\/p>\n
Gurdial\t died  many  years  ago\t leaving  certain  lands  in
\nvillages Bhadroya, Kingarian and Pathankot, Tehsil Pathankot
\nin the district of Gurdaspur, and leaving him surviving\t his
\nwidow  Musammat Melo and a daughter Musammat Maya Devi,\t the
\nrespondent before us.  Some time in the year 1926, a portion
\nof the land in village Bhadroya was acquired for the  Kangra
\nValley\tRailway\t and a sum of Rs. 1,539-7-0 was\t awarded  to
\nMusammat  Melo.\t  On  ail objection by\tthe  appellant\tthis
\namount was deposited in the Court of the Senior\t Subordinate
\nJudge,\tGurdaspur, with a direction to pay the\tinterest  on
\nthis amount to Musammat Melo.\n<\/p>\n
On  the\t 28th  September 1944 Musammat\tMelo  died  and\t the
\nRevenue Courts ordered mutations in respect of the lands  in
\nthe  three  villages  in favour of  the\t respondent  as\t the
\ndaughter of Gurdial.\n<\/p>\n
On  the 10th March 1945 the appellant filed the suit out  of
\nwhich  this  appeal  arises against  the  respondent  for  a
\ndeclaration  that he was entitled to the lands mentioned  in
\nthe plaint as well as to the sum of
\n1194<\/span>
\nRs.  1\t539-7-0 in preference to the  respondent  under\t the
\ncustom\tgoverning the parties *hereunder the collaterals  of
\nthe last male holder excluded the daughter.
\nThe respondent contested the suit mainly on the grounds-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  that   the\t suit  for  a  mere  declaration   was\t not
\nmaintainable\n<\/p>\n
(ii)that  the parties were governed by Hindu Law and not  by
\ncustom,\n<\/p>\n
(iii)that  the appellant was not a collateral of Gurdial  at
\nall,\n<\/p>\n
(iv)that the properties in suit were not ancestral, and\n<\/p>\n
(v)  that there was no custom whereunder the collaterals  of
\nthe  father  who  was  the last\t male  holder  excluded\t the
\ndaughter from succession to the selfacquired property of her
\nfather.\n<\/p>\n
The Subordinate Judge in his judgment pronounced on the 31st
\nOctober 1946 held-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  that the lands in suit being in possession of  tenants,
\nthe suit for a declaration of title thereto was maintainable
\nbut the suit for a declaration in respect of the sum of\t Rs.
\n1,539-7-0 was not maintainable in view of the provisions  of
\nthe   Indian   Succession   Act\t  relating   to\t  succession
\ncertificates,\n<\/p>\n
(ii)that  the  parties were governed by custom\tand  not  by
\nHindu Law,\n<\/p>\n
(iii)that  the appellant was a collateral of Gurdial  within
\nfour degrees,\n<\/p>\n
(iv)that  the land in Khata No. 2 of village  Kingarian\t was
\nancestral  while  the rest of the lands in  suit  were\tnon-
\nancestral, and\n<\/p>\n
(v)  that there was a custom according to which daughter was
\nexcluded  from\tinheritance  by the collaterals\t up  to\t the
\nfourth\tdegree\twith respect to ancestral as well  as  self-
\nacquired  property of the last male holder as laid  down  in
\nthe case of Buta Singh v. Mt. Harnamon(1).\n<\/p>\n
In  the\t result, the Subordinate Judge decreed the  suit  in
\nrespect only of the lands in suit and ordered the parties to
\nbear their own costs.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  A.I.R. 1946 Lah. 306.\n<\/p>\n
\t\t\t    1195<\/span><\/p>\n
Against this judgment and decree the respondent preferred an
\nappeal\tto the Lahore High Court.  The\tappellant  preferred
\ncross-objections  against the order as to costs and  against
\nthe finding that the lands in the three villages except\t the
\nland in Khata No. 2 of village Kingarian were non-ancestral.
\nAfter  the partition of India the appeal was transferred  to
\nthe High Court of East Punjab.\n<\/p>\n
By  its\t judgment dated the 28th July 1949 the\tEast  Punjab
\nHigh  Court  allowed  the appeal and  dismissed\t the  cross-
\nobjections on the following findings:-\n<\/p>\n
(i)  that the suit for declaration of title to the lands was
\nmaintainable as all the lands in suit were in the possession
\nof tenants,,\n<\/p>\n
(ii) that  the lands in suit except the land in Khata No.  2
\nof village Kingarian were non-ancestral, and\n<\/p>\n
(iii)\t  that\taccording  to the custom prevailing  in\t the
\nGurdaspur  district  a daughter was entitled to\t succeed  to
\nnon-ancestral  property\t in preference to  collaterals\teven
\nthough they were within the fourth degree.
\nThe  High  Court  accordingly modified\tthe  decree  of\t the
\nSubordinate Judge to the extent that the declaration in\t the
\nappellant’s  favour was made to relate only to the  land  in
\nKhata  No.  2  of village Kingarian which  was\theld  to  be
\nancestral.   On an application made by the appellant on\t the
\n26th August 1949 the High Court, by its order dated the\t 5th
\nJune 1950, granted him a certificate of fitness to appeal to
\nthe  Federal  Court.   After the commencement  of  the\tCon-
\nstitution of India the appeal has come before this Court for
\nfinal disposal.\n<\/p>\n
The  first question raised before us but not very  seriously
\npressed is as to whether the lands in suit other than  those
\nin Khata No. 2 in village Kingarian were ancestral or  self-
\nacquired.  Our attention has not been drawn to any  material
\non the record which induces us to take a view different from
\nthe  view  concurrently\t taken by  the\tCourts\tbelow.\t We,
\ntherefore, see no force or substance in this contention,
\n153<\/span>
\n1196<\/span>
\nThe  main  fight before us has been on the  question  as  to
\nwhether\t there\tis  a  custom  in  the\tGurdaspur   district
\ngoverning  the parties under which a collateral\t within\t the
\nfourth degree excludes the daughter of the last male  holder
\nfrom succession to the self-acquired property of her father.
\nThe  customary rights of succession of daughters as  against
\nthe  collaterals of the father with reference  to  ancestral
\nand  non-ancestral  lands  are stated  in  paragraph  23  of
\nRattigan’s  Digest  of Customary Law.  It  is  categorically
\nstated\tin  subparagraph  (2) of  that\tparagraph  that\t the
\ndaughter  succeeds  to\tthe self-acquired  property  of\t the
\nfather in preference to the collaterals even though they are
\nwithin the fourth degree.  Rattigan’s work has been accepted
\nby the Privy Council as “a book of unquestioned authority in
\nthe  Punjab”.  Indeed,the correctness of this paragraph\t was
\nnot  disputed  before this Court in Gopal  Singh  v.  Ujagar
\nSingh<\/a>(1).   The\t general custom of the Punjab being  that  a
\ndaughter  excludes  the collaterals from succession  to\t the
\nselfacquired property of her father the initial onus, there-
\nfore, must, on principle, be on the collaterals to show that
\nthe general custom in favour of the daughter’s succession to
\nthe self-acquired property of her father has been varied  by
\na  special  local  custom excluding the\t daughter  which  is
\nbinding on the parties.\t Indeed, it has been so held by\t the
\nJudicial  Committee  in Mst.  Subhani v.  Nawab(2)  and\t the
\nmatter is now well-settled.\n<\/p>\n
The appellant claims to have discharged this initial onus in
\ntwo  ways,  namely (1) by producing the\t Riwaj-i-am  of\t the
\nGurdaspur district prepared by Mr. Kennaway in 1913 and\t (2)
\nby  adducing  evidence showing that the collaterals  of\t one
\nHarnam\tSingh,\twho  was  also\ta  Sarswat  Brahmin  of\t the
\nGurdaspur  district and indeed a member of this very  family
\nof  Gurdial succeeded in preference to his daughter.  It  is
\npointed out that no instance has been proved on the part  of
\nthe  respondent showing that the daughter ever excluded\t the
\ncollaterals from succession to the self-acquired property of
\nthe father.  The trial Court
\n(1) [1955] 1 S.C R. 86.\n<\/p>\n
(2) I.L.R. [1940] Lah. 154.\n<\/p>\n
1197<\/span><\/p>\n
as well as the High Court took the view that the evidence as
\nto the succession to the property of Harnam Singh was of  no
\nassistance to the appellant for the reason that the evidence
\nwas  extremely sketchy, that it did not appear\twhether\t the
\nproperties  left  by Harnam Singh were\tancestral  or  self-
\nacquired  or whether the properties left by him were of\t any
\nsubstantial  value at all as would have made it worth  while
\nfor  the  daughter  to claim the same  in  addition  to\t the
\nproperties   gifted  to\t her  by  her  father\tduring\t his
\nlifetime.Further, the fact that the daughter did not contest
\nthe succession of the collaterals to the properties left  by
\nHarnam\tSingh, even if they were self acquired,\t might\twell
\nhave  been  the result, as held by the High Court,  of\tsome
\nfamily arrangement.  We find ourselves in agreement with the
\nCourts below that the instance relied upon by the  appellant
\nis wholly insufficient to discharge the onus that was on him
\nto  displace the general custom recorded in paragraph  23(2)
\nof Rattigan’s Digest of Customary Law.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant\tcontends  that\tin any\tcase  he  has  fully
\ndischarged the onus that was on him by producing in evidence
\nthe  Riwaj-i-am\t recording  the custom of  the\tdistrict  of
\nGurdaspur  which  was  compiled by  Mr.\t Kennaway  in  1913.
\nReference  is  also made to the earlier Riwaj-i-ams  of\t the
\nGurdaspur  District  prepared in 1865 and 1893.\t  Answer  to
\nquestion 16 as recorded in the Riwaj-i-am of 1913 shows that
\nsubject\t to certain exceptions, which are not  material\t for
\nour  purpose,  the general rule is that\t the  daughters\t are
\nexcluded  by  the widow and male kindred of  the  deceased.,
\nhowever remote.\t This answer goes much beyond the answers to
\nthe same question as recorded in the Riwaj-i-ams of 1865 and
\n1893 for those answers limit the exclusion in favour of\t the
\nmale kindred up to certain specified degrees.  The answer to
\nquestion 17 of the 1913 Riwai-i-am like those to question 17
\nof  the\t 1865 and 1893 Riwaj-i-ams  clearly  indicates\tthat
\nexcept amongst the Gujjars of the Shakargarh tehsil all\t the
\nremaining  tribes  consulted  by  the  Revenue\t authorities
\nrecognised no distinction as to the rights of the  daughters
\nto inherit (i) the immovable or
\n1198<\/span>
\nancestral and (ii) the movable or self acquired property  of
\ntheir respective fathers.  It is claimed that these  answers
\nquite  adequately displace the general custom and shift\t the
\nonus  to the respondent to disprove the presumption  arising
\non  these  Riwaj-i-ams\tby citing  instances  of  succession
\ncontrary  to these answers.  In support of  this  contention
\nreference  is made to the observations of the Privy  Council
\nin Beg v. Allah Ditta(1) that the statements contained in  a
\nRiwaj-i-am form a strong piece of evidence in support of the
\ncustom\ttherein\t entered subject to rebuttal.\tReliance  is
\nalso placed on the observations of the Privy Council in\t Mt.
\nVaishno\t Ditti\tv. Mt.\tRameshri(2) to the effect  that\t the
\nstatements  in\tthe  Riwaj-i-am might be  accepted  even  if
\nunsupported  by\t instances.   The  contention  is  that\t  on
\nproduction  by\tthe  appellant\tof  the\t Riwaj-i-am  of\t the
\nGurdaspur  district  the onus shifted to the  respondent  to
\nprove instances rebutting the statements contained  therein.
\nThis, it is urged, the respondent has failed to do.
\n”  There  is  no doubt or dispute as to\t the  value  of\t the
\nentries\t in the Riwaj-i-am.  It is well_settled that  though
\nthey  are  entitled to an initial presumption in  favour  of
\ntheir  correctness irrespective of the question\t whether  or
\nnot  the custom, as recorded, is in accord with the  general
\ncustom, the quantum of evidence\t   necessary  to rebut\tthat
\npresumption will, however,    vary   with  the\tfacts\tand.
\ncircumstances  of  each\t case.\tWhere,\tfor  instance,\t the
\nRiwaj-i-am lays down a custom in consonance with the general
\nagricultural custom of the province, very strong proof would
\nbe required to displace that presumption; but where, on\t the
\nother  hand,  the custom as recorded in\t the  Riwaj-i-am  is
\nopposed\t to the custom generally prevalent, the\t presumption
\nwill be considerably weakened.\tLikewise, where the Riwaj-i-
\nam  affects adversely the rights of the females who  had  no
\nopportunity   whatever\tof  appearing  before  the   Revenue
\nauthorities, the presumption will be weaker still and only a
\nfew instances would be sufficient to rebut it. [See Khan Beg
\nv. Mt.
\n(1)  [1916] L.R. 44 I.A. 89.\n<\/p>\n
(2)  [1928] I.L.R. 10 Lah. 186; L.R. 55 I.A. 407
\n\t\t1199<\/span>
\nFateh Khatun (1), Jagat Singh v. Mst.  Jiwan The  principles
\nlaid  down in these cases were approved of by  the  Judicial
\nCommittee in Mst.  Subhani’s case supra.\n<\/p>\n
Learned\t counsel appearing for the appellant  contends\tthat
\neven  if  the  presumption  as to  the\tcorrectness  of\t the
\nRiwaj-i-am  be weak, the respondent has not cited  a  single
\ninstance of a daughter having -excluded the collaterals from
\nsuccession  to the selfacquired property of her\t father\t and
\nhas, therefore, failed to discharge the onus that was thrown
\non her as a result of the production by the appellant of the
\nRiwaj-i-am  of\t1913 and, consequently, the  appellant\tmust
\nsucceed.  This argument overlooks the fact that in order  to
\nenable the appellant to displace the general custom recorded
\nin  Rattigan’s work and to shift the onus to the  respondent
\nthe appellant must produce a Riwaj-i-am which is a  reliable
\nand trustworthy document.  It has been held in\tQamar-ud-Din
\nv.  Mt. Fateh Bano(3) that if the Riwaj-i-am produced  is  a
\nreliable  and  a trustworthy document,\thas  been  carefully
\nprepared  and  does  not contain  within  its  four  corners
\ncontradictory statements of custom and in the opinion of the
\nSettlement  Officer  is not a record of the  wishes  of\t the
\npersons\t appearing before him as to what the  custom  should
\nbe, it would be a presumptive piece of evidence in proof  of
\nthe special custom ,set up, which if left unrebutted by\t the
\ndaughters   would  lead\t to  a\tresult\tfavourable  to\t the
\ncollaterals. If, on the other hand, it is not a document  of
\nthe kind indicated above then such a Riwaj-i-am will have no
\nvalue  at  all\tas a presumptive piece\tof  evidence.\tThis
\nprinciple has been followed by the East Punjab High Court in
\nthe  later case of Mohammad Khalil v. Mohammad\tBakhsh\t(4).
\nThis  being the position in law, we have to  scrutinise\t and
\nascertain whether the Riwaj-i-ams of the Gurdaspur  district
\nin  so far as they purport to record the local custom as  to
\nthe  right of succession of daughters to the  self  acquired
\nproperties  of\ttheir  respective father  are  reliable\t and
\ntrustworthy documents.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1931] I.L.R. 13, Lah. 276, 296, 297.  (2) A.I.R.\t1935
\nLah. 617.\n<\/p>\n
(3) [1943] I.L.R. 26 Lah. 110.\t (4) A.I.R. 1949 E.P. 252.\n<\/p>\n
1200<\/span><\/p>\n
Twenty-two  tribes including Brahmins were consulted by\t Mr.
\nKennaway who prepared the Riwaj-i-am of 1913.  In  paragraph
\n4  of the Preface Mr. Kennaway himself states that  many  of
\nthe  questions\trelated\t to matters on\twhich  there  really
\nexisted no custom and the people had merely stated what\t the
\ncustom should be and not what it actually was.\tIn  Appendix
\n‘C’  are collected 56 instances of mutuations in  which\t the
\ndaughter  inherited.   In  these there\tare  four  instances
\nrelating to Brahmins.  Answer to question 16, as recorded in
\nthis  Riwaj-i-am,  has\tbeen discredited  and  shown  to  be
\nincorrect  in at least three cases, namely, Gurdit Singh  v.
\nMt.  Malan(1), Kesar Singh v. Achhar Singh<\/a>(1) and Buta Singh
\nv. Mt.\tHarnamon(3).  The answer to question 16 as  recorded
\nin the 1913 Riwaj-i-am, it was pointed out, went much beyond
\nthe answer given to the same question in the Riwaj-i-ams  of
\n1865 and 1893.\tThe answer to question 17 of the 1913 Riwaj-
\ni-am that no distinction is to be made between ancestral and
\nself-acquired  property has not been accepted as correct  in
\nnot  less  than\t six  cases,  namely,  Bawa  Singh  v.\t Mt.
\nPartap(4),  Jagat  Singh v. Mt.\t Jiwan(5),  Kesar  Singh  v.
\nGurnam\tSingh<\/a>(1), Najju v. Mt.\tAimna Bibi (7) Gurdit  Singh
\nv.  Mt.\t  Man Kaur<\/a>(8), and Labh v. Mt. Fateh  Bibi(9).\t The
\nstatements in a Riwaj-i-am the truth of which is doubted  by
\nthe  compiler  himself\tin  the\t preface  and  which   stand
\ncontradicted  by  the  instances collected and\tset  out  in
\nAppendix  ‘C’  of the same Riwaj-i-am and  which  have\tbeen
\ndiscredited in judicial proceedings and held to be incorrect
\ncannot,\t in  our  opinion,  be regarded\t as  a\treliable  or
\ntrustworthy   document\tand  cannot  displace  the   initial
\npresumption  of\t the general custom recorded  in  Rattigan’s
\nbook so as to shift the onus to the daughter who is the res-
\npondent.\n<\/p>\n
The  appellant relies on the cases of Ramzan Shah  v.  Sohna
\nShah(“),  Nanak Chand v. Basheshar Nath(11), Mt.  Massan  v.
\nSawan Mal(“‘) and Kesar Singh v.\n<\/p>\n
(1)  [1924] I.L.R. 5 Lah. 364.(2) A.I.R. 1936 Lah. 68.
\n(3)  A.I.R. 1946 Lah. 306.(4)  A.I.R. 1935 Lah. 288.
\n(5)  Ibid, 617.\t    (6)\t Ibid, 696.\n<\/p>\n
(7)  A.I.R. 1936 Lah. 493.(8)  A.I.R. 1937 Lah. 90.
\n(9)  A.I.R. 1940 Lah. 436.(10)\t[1889] 24 P.R, 191.
\n(11) [19O8]43 P.R. 15.\t (12)  A.I.R. 1935 Lah. 453,
\n1201<\/span>
\nAchhar Singh(1).  The first three cases are of no assistance
\nto  him although the second and third relate to Brahmins  of
\nGurdaspur,  for\t the properties in dispute’ in\tthose  cases
\nwere  ancestral and the respondent does not now dispute\t the
\nappellant’s  right  to\tsucceed to  her\t father’s  ancestral
\npropertie’s.  These cases, therefore, do not throw any light
\non the present case which is concerned with the question  of
\nsuccession  to selfacquired property.  Further, in the\tlast
\ncase,  the collaterals were beyond the fourth degree and  it
\nwas enough for the Court to say that irrespective of whether
\nthe properties in dispute were ancestral or selfacquired the
\ncollaterals  in that case could not succeed.  It is also  to
\nbe  noted  that\t the  earlier  decisions  werenot  cited  or
\nconsidered in that case.\n<\/p>\n
In  our\t opinion the appellant has failed to  discharge\t the
\nonus  that was initially on him and that being the  position
\nno  burden  was cast on the respondent which she  need\thave
\ndischarged by adducing evidence of particular instances.  In
\nthese\tcircumstances,\tthe  general  custom   recorded\t  in
\nRattigan’s  book must prevail and the decision of  the\tHigh
\nCourt  must be upheld.\tWe accordingly dismiss\tthis  appeal
\nwith costs.\n<\/p>\n
Applal dismissed.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Mahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955 Equivalent citations: 1955 AIR 266, 1955 SCR (5)1191 Author: S R Das Bench: Das, Sudhi Ranjan PETITIONER: MAHANT SALIG RAM Vs. RESPONDENT: MUSAMMAT MAYA DEVI. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 21\/01\/1955 BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN BENCH: DAS, SUDHI RANJAN BHAGWATI, NATWARLAL H. […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-71332","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nMahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1955-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-04-26T14:00:29+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955\",\"datePublished\":\"1955-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-26T14:00:29+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955\"},\"wordCount\":2975,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955\",\"name\":\"Mahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1955-01-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-04-26T14:00:29+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1955-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-04-26T14:00:29+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955","datePublished":"1955-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-26T14:00:29+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955"},"wordCount":2975,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955","name":"Mahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1955-01-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-04-26T14:00:29+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mahant-salig-ram-vs-musammat-maya-devi-on-21-january-1955#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mahant Salig Ram vs Musammat Maya Devi on 21 January, 1955"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71332","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=71332"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/71332\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=71332"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=71332"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=71332"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}