Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.40 seconds)
Thakur Gokalchand vs Parvin Kumari on 16 May, 1952 cites

Musammat Subhani vs Nawab on 17 August, 1940

Mohammad v. Zawar Hussain(1);Mt. Subhani v. 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.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 38 - Full Document

H.H. Mir Abdul Hussain Khan vs Mussammat Bibi Sona Dero on 30 October, 1917

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 Punjab Laws Act, 1872. (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 v. Sohel Singh and Others (1), Abdul Hussein Khan v. 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"
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 59 - Full Document

Beg vs Allah Ditta on 2 November, 1916

(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 v. Allah Ditta (5), Saleh (1) 110 P.R. (1906) 390 at 410 (4) A.I.R. 1925 P.C. 267 at 271.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 13 - Full Document
1