Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)
Kehar Singh & Ors vs Chanan Singh & Ors on 14 December, 1967 cites

Lakshmi Narain vs Mst. Aparna Devi on 6 January, 1953

We shall, however, assume in favour of the appellants that Questions 48 and 49 of the Riwaj-i-am relate also to succession of non-ancestral property of the last male holder. Even upon that assumption we are of opinion that the case of the appellants cannot succeed. The reason is that though the entries in the Riwaj-i-am are entitled to an initial presumption in favour of their correctness, the quantum of evidence necessary to rebut this presumption would vary with the facts and circumstances of each parti- cular case. Where, for instance, the Riwaj-i-am laid down a custom in consonance with the general agricultural custom of the State, very strong proof would be required to displace this presumption, but where, on the other hand, this was not the case, and the custom as recorded in the Riwaj-i-am was opposed to the rules generally prevalent, the presumption would be considerably weakened. Likewise, where the Riwaj-i-am affected adversely the rights of females who had no opportunity whatever of appearig before the revenue authorities, the presumption would be weaker still, and very little evidence would suffice to rebut it. In Narain v. Mst. Deoki(l), Roe, J. stated as follows :
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Abdul Ali Abdul Rahman vs Mst. Jannat And Ors. on 11 January, 1957

"In my view, the raison d' etre of those cases which lay down that the Manuals of Customary Law were ordinarily concerned with ancestral property only is quite intelligible. Collaterals are, as stated by Addison, J. in Abdul Rehman v. Mst. Natho ( 2 ) really speaking interested in that property only which descends from their common ancestor and this is the only basis of the agnatic theory. What a maleholder acquires himself is really no concern of theirs. It is reasonable, therefore, to assume that when manuals- of customary law were originally prepared and subsequently revised, the persons questioned, unless specifically told to the contrary, could normally reply in the light of their own interest alone and that, as stated above, was confined to the ancestral property only. The fact that on some occasions the questioner had particularly drawn some distinction between ancestral and non-ancestral property would not have put them on their guard in every case, considering their lack of education and lack of intelligence in general. Similarly, the use of the terms 'in no case' or 'under no circumstances' would refer to ancestral property only and not be extended so as to cover self-acquired property unless the context favoured that construction."
Allahabad High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Musammat Subhani vs Nawab on 17 August, 1940

The decision of the Full Bench of the Lahore High Court was approved by the Judicial Committee in Mst. Subhani v. Nawab and Ors.(3) in which the controversy arose with regard to the interpretation of questions 16 and 17 and the answers thereto in Wilson's Manual of Customary Law which are reproduced below "Question 16 (p. 48)-Under what circumstances are daughters entitled to inherit ? Are they excluded by the sons or by the widow, or by the near male kindred of the, deceased ? If they are excluded by the near male kindred, is there any fixed limit of relationship within which such near kindred must stand towards the deceased in order to exclude his daughters ? If so, how is the limit ascertained ? If it depends on descent from a common ancestor, state within how many generations relatively to the deceased such common ancestor must come.
Bombay High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 38 - Full Document
1