Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

" In fact it had become customary even in the Courts to look upon custom as a thing generally followed and to place the burden of proof upon any person who asserted that his custom was not the same as the so called general custom of the Province. If this person succeeded in proving the custom he alleged, the name, I special custom' was given to it." The reported decisions very often proceeded on the basis that if there was a general custom, it did not have to be proved; that anybody wishing to rely on a custom at variance with the general custom, must prove it or fail in his claim. It seems to us wrong to say that a general custom need never be proved. It is stated in Halsbury's Laws of England (3rd Ed.) Vol. 11, Art. 319 at p. 171, " All customs of which the Courts do not take the judicial notice must be clearly proved to exist-the onus of establishing them being upon the parties relying upon their existence ". No distinction is here made between a general custom and other customs. Section 48 of the Evidence Act also contemplates the Proof of a general custom. In Daya Ram v. Sohel Singh Robertson J., said at p. 410 -

"......... It lies upon the person asserting that he is ruled in regard to a particular matter by custom, to prove that he is so governed, and not by personal law, and further to prove what the particular custom is.') These observations were approved by the Judicial (1) (1935) I.L.R. 17 Lah. 296, 299. (2) 110 P.R. 1906.

Committee in Abdul HuSsein Khan v. Bibi Sona Dero (1). It therefore appears to us that the ordinary rule is that all customs, general or otherwise, have to be proved. Under s. 57 of the Evidence Act however nothing need be proved of which courts can take judicial notice. -Therefore it is said that if there is a custom of which the courts can take judicial notice, it need not be proved. Now the circumstances in which the courts can take judicial notice of a custom were stated by Lord Dunedin in Raja Rama Rao v. Raja of Pittapur (2), in the following words, " When a custom or usage, whether in regard to a tenure or a contract or a family right, is repeatedly brought to the notice of the Courts of a country, the Courts may hold that custom or usage to be introduced into the law without necessity of proof in each individual case." When a custom has been so recognised by the courts, it passes into the law of the land and the proof of it then becomes unnecessary under s. 57(1) of the Evidence Act. It appears to us that in the courts in the Punjab the expression " general custom " has really been used in this sense, namely, that a custom has by repeated recognition by courts, become entitled to judicial notice as was said in Bawa Singh v. Mt. Taro and Sukhwant Kaur v. Balwant Singh (4).

-for the last ten years are uniformly against the view expressed in paragraph 24 of Rattigan's Digest. We there- fore come to the conclusion that the High Court was right in its view that it could not be held on, the authority of paragraph 24 in Rattigan's Digest that a general custom excluding sisters from inheritance as against collaterals, existed.

It was then said that in the plaint it had been admitted by the respondent that there was a general custom as alleged by the appellant and so no proof of that general custom was required in this case. We do not think this contention is justified. No doubt in her plaint the respondent referred to a custom entitling her to succeed and termed it a special custom. We are unable to read the reference to a special custom as (1) (1912) 13 I.C. 71 I. (2) 100 P.R. 1916.