Scribd
Upload
5 views23 pages

PCL Custom

Customary Law in Punjab is a set of rules derived from the customs of tribes, recognized by courts and applicable in matters such as succession, marriage, and family relations. It is considered the first rule of decision in the absence of statutory provisions and reflects the moral and economic consciousness of the community. The document discusses the historical background, applicability, and principles governing the determination of whether customary or personal law applies in various contexts.

Uploaded by

sanna goyal
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
5 views23 pages

PCL Custom

Customary Law in Punjab is a set of rules derived from the customs of tribes, recognized by courts and applicable in matters such as succession, marriage, and family relations. It is considered the first rule of decision in the absence of statutory provisions and reflects the moral and economic consciousness of the community. The document discusses the historical background, applicability, and principles governing the determination of whether customary or personal law applies in various contexts.

Uploaded by

sanna goyal
Copyright
© All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as PDF or read online on Scribd
kn (CHAPTER I a oe ns 0 enavvcnon GOR 1. What is Customary Law ? “Thete sno enactment like the Punjab, Customary. Law, codified and | having ‘the sanction of the Legislature. It_is a convenient for Sg eral ees oh oe euro A re a : Tait Bt esto aeons tetra avian oo ae Se ae Fee Fh ad te ve the Legislature i Pane Zar Seay tee wd Ose may ‘Feustom has, by repeated recognition by courts become entitled to judicial Some Upear Siaer¥ Mist Jeo. ATK 1959 Sc. 108T. Tc aaa {ouaiy fo taliy and from tribe to tbs. 75 PR 1917. F The Punjab Customary Law Tie anton of he ae customs Iw deends_wnon_ the conga an of tie body of peront om such Taw applies. 48 DR . te oe 1% What is stom ? A Cust a_sule_of conduct which the . taneoiiy adnan purswanee of : oom agli at posth “urls of justice and when the judicial : enfored by the power of the State sions tye ts foundations inte cll wil_oc coon cow : ‘ete a ma eared a ah forthe wifor pease of a Sovegn or = Sas The Bt a . ‘both are alike though tt Nore oe ofruks of man conduct, cher precited. by Le ee amy Sante Gime bil conduct on moray prised _of st of rues observed by certain tides, founded upon pe-exist Fics of condict and evidenced by long wage. Is oniga & souded ih 2 ‘The Ponjab Customary Law cht vor te oe ional has a5 true, _Just_and reasonable, ie past it has is. and Witehurei S cipeaal fo be loved as law ries Bure it exposed 29 bec elloved a ‘Wheoever_a particular ease. arose to which no prevedent was apolica- ble_of_when-Whe “existing, practice 3 _offea either the- moral F economical consciousness of the tribe, jt estate ew_practice appli- cable ti cease through its Panchayat or by silent acquiescence. Th Ted preceica wink peda ned show So that gariclar question Tvs. stom is decided! pie fian_law In_the prtmitive society. there vere sth en in their ways of life, Incertain cases, we do find that High SHNOFATE bal oy of the laws. embodied in the mms. 19 PLR. 1901: 35 Ditnton between positives, cistoia and sage, All hese thice ae legally binding on the partice eonceined: + Positive Law aston Usage is arule set by a fis no" civéet ivas recognised in see- sovereign power. * author. tion 7 of the Punjab Laws-Aet of 1872. Xt comes fom the "Reames fom tet it dn“ tablished Site wey. praia wich ig ot fressly or impliedly Sones Wee “ conte bawcen_ the ares sonore Wis ething of the + Ihiga thing of the Te ib a thir of the modernstate, | ,, ancient soeeity. " modern’ “mercantile . - : society. It embodies the‘rufes* ~The rules embodied A larger part of most commending themselves “in eustom are ack! —contraéts is iinphied to tg incorporate niobdedged and app- rather thai expressed. cominunity through the - roved by. the public help ofthe State ‘apinion of the soceity “are. Itis te witen law, CB the unten low Li need aot be amtigile evidenced by ‘or uniform fike custom. ADRIVALLAM, = OA WAJIE-UL-ARZ (G) District mannal of Customary law. * NENT TTT Applicability of Customary Law 3 (4) Old orai .traditious 5 of villages relating spe- jally to matters con- tained in Section. 5 » * Cafe Punjab Laws Act. Gopee Ivis pleaged and prov- a ). ‘ed bythe: partes con- — *Photostat @ 50. PP cemned. eis the ‘secular in ’ 2 characte. > tis the express law Tt is the implied law for It is the implied law for the whole state. tribes only...» for traders only: 4. Biistory. . . . ‘The bisiorical background of custom is shrouded in the. hoary “past. It came into existence with the growth of jndividual tribes families -a8 —they- settled “downto agricultural pursvits in soe TES —THE commusity Teng necessitated and eeersted ceria rules of conduct considered at the time to besmgst suitable -or essential for thé ‘well being of the community: To ,be-acteptable to the entire community these rigs had .to be: equitable, reasonable, uniform and not _ opposed to morality. ‘The observance of Such uniform’ series of acts har- dened into custom which the people observed ‘without any toercion from any body and without any apparent author. The birth’arid growth of custom xuis the natural consequence of the progress of human society, singe ‘all association of persons must” adopt consciously or ..unconéeiously some delitite rules governing their reciprocal rights and obligations .and there rust be a degree Of permanence and ceftainty about them if the community is 0 grow and prosper, ‘These rules of conduct known as custom may hive been founded on utility or arisen from social necessity but. they have always < had the tacit sanction of. the collective will or the common consent of the people among whom they prevail. ve Custom is older t fe law when itis adopted =~ as such sD “Tegislaion or when itis - implied in the-dei jurts ostablished by various States. - © CHAPTER 1 APPLICABILITY OF CUSTOMARY LAW TO PUNJAB AND HARYANA 1, How is custom applicable in the States of Punjab & Harysita? = In these Stites Euston is the'Birst rue. of desision it all juestions fclating to succession, special property of females,” betrotha marriaz:, divorce, | dower, adoption, guardianship, “minority, bast fainily rele ions, wills 4 The Punjab Customary Law cies, gifts, partitions, eligious usage or institution and alluvior i gti, partons ip a5. Sree Uioganed or ba ied by te Aets_going "by the game of Hindu Code or other statutory provisions. (Se on 5_of « Punjab Laws Act, 1872, section 2 of Bengal Aliwvion and Dituvion Regulation 11 of 1929). The former provision shows tt bathers 4 Gistom, which oot eontarf to justice, eqeiy_and good conscience Xtand has ot Ween alael or abolised By aay sbameat 30 S fiot beea declared_void by any sparen autho‘ “shall be the first rue oF decision, Peisonal law viz the Hindu Law where the parties ae a aye eee ay applyim the absence: piled and proved Ciistom, to the extent that th ME Rae oe de ee eee modificd “by custom. ef AIR 1961 $C124. ¢ disomy when the eastom is estal at is bes of decision otherwise “personal Taw _governs_—Mem AIR” . 251, 1960 PLR #57 Uh Toons Bea emeneiated in 41 PR. 1906 approved “by Privy Council in45 Cal.450. Whhese_customary law fovering the parts dearly piles for a case_a pity camnar beallowed to fallback upon his penonal IAW : at - 1935 Lahore 485. Where no_definté rule of custom is proved to exist, she paities fall back ‘on their _persoual law even ifthey are ostensibly governed by custom. 1937 Tahore 78 Tgdev Singh ¥ Chand Kasur 1968 Cur. LJ 204. Also- 1960 PLR. 857. Custom has always. bees in fluid - state changing. with the so and cultural ideas‘of the community and often diffusing across territorial borders of States and because of its ever changing nature jt knows no feowaphical, racial, religious or provincial barviers. Jangir Singh v. Sucha Singh’ 1970 Cur, LJ. 35 (DB). of tribal members consultation at the preparation of REWAJ-I-AM. “Where member of & tribe were consulted by the authorities at the fir af the preparation of the Riwaj-i-am it raises an initia prestimpyion ~~ that the ibe was governed by custom and the onus lies upot the peyon alleging to the contrary. [Link]. 1947 Lahore 280 (F.B.) 2. Best evidence is that of actual instances, Merely conducting agriculture for wo or theee generations or ti agricultural tribes only raises a possibilty. that a- party by Castomary Law but governed Rota proof of this fact. 1934 Lahore 800. ni07 PR. : 1867. it was held by a Full Bench that among the aericultursts’_living_in compact villages of ihe Centeal Punjab,..an—agi- calturist has Ro_power to. alienate. his, Ancestral land, saye for necessity, 7 Jwho-was-tocontest-an alienation. of such” land i at there ig @. special custom by virtue “of which T refiimiption in favour ‘of exis- nd itis fhe alicnec ‘on whim’ the onys lies to WRUYE especial cisTSHH OE the family to the | | | mcm cht Applicability of Customary Law 5 contrary 73, PLR, 1895(F.B.) has strengthened and supported the_abo' ‘Those who run away from _rural_agri¢ settle themselves for good in urban life and adopt trade or service as their occupation and source ° ‘one intial presumption which is only this that they areZgoverned” by Hind they are Findus and by Mohammad Lawit-ty 1935 Lahore 967 and 1936 Lahore 253. ‘The onus is heavy on. in case of High-caste Hindus. The mere fact that [Link] declared agriculturists or that their tribe has departed from personal law in some respects does not displace the initial presumption noted above. 1940 Lah 51 the main_ay A family, which has been in icultural, does _not cease to be a pl governed 6 have taken service under Government, From the mere itare educated at ing i rural area, it docs not follow that fact that the parties have been living in rural area, it does si ac ptetond by extiar be ‘A family or asuvall-community_may be observing customary rule i one particular matter but fi iL cannot be argued that in all mauers iis necessarily governed by custom. Adoption oftitegutar mariage practices is_no indication thet _in_matters of alfenas tion—aIs0 customary Taw prevails. ‘Chanan Singh v. Bishan Singh. 60 Punjab Law Reporter 83. Where the plaintiff claimed possession by redemption of. land on the ground that she was the daughter of the brother of the last male holder {pacties being jats) as against the village proprietors, it was held that customary law will apply a5 the’ parties were litigating under customary Jaw and that principles of equity, justice and good- conscience will be * ‘followed. Ram Kishen v. Ram Rakhi, 1970 Cur. L. 3. 190. ‘The courts can take a judicial notice of a custom which las received wide spread notoriety being followed frequently over the. years every ‘where. Unless the collaterals can prove a special cistom copirary to. the general custom of recognising sister’s sons as better heits than remoter than Sth degree collaterals the general custom must be relied upon. Present trends favour female heirs. Jangir Singh v. Sucha Singh 1970 Cur. LJ. 35. 3. General Principles for Determising whether Custoniary or Fersomal Law applies. : () Agricultural Tribes—(Jats and Rajputs) follow Customary Law. (2) Non-Agricultural Tribes are generally governed by their personal law- They may own land but they are not governed by custom. 60. y PLR. 159. 2 (3) In case of tribes not primarily agriewturjste, te following questions may be considered with advantage :— = < (a) Is the tribe following ageiculture [Link] or primarily? If'so custom applic. ’ . 4 i i | | 4. Position of Chel “The Punjab Customary Law | igultaiists i shat they (&) Twit presumption in the case, of hon-agrieukibtee> Sy" Gosain drenot governed. by custom (Chef Justice Bhandrh eh y 4) in Rattan Singh v. Mukand Lal. 60 Punjab we agricul © ‘od during which the pacties followed agricul " Me suple ‘ety small, custom does not apply, othe does. (4) Do the parties cultivate their t 30 eustom applies. : 2 on (© What is. their share inthe Shafat deh (the village. common fas). {A latge share shows the applicability of the art ee What is their portion of land in'the whole land 2 (0 pimseereen ta Now sam Do they form a compact village community oF Hyp © Poenows village ? Only, the compact village .commanity 1s gv ned by custo. (h) Uo they fornish Lambardirs 2. If they do, favour of custom * ¥ (Have lhe alienations been frequent and allowed, to -pass uncha Heaged.? »Ifso customs applies. -. eee i) Was the -tibe, not being _ primarily ” agriculturaly settled it the OMe the “kine” of He foundation? “It 30, the tribe follows Customary-Eaw. . sa e) «What ace“the cincumstatices vindér “which the tribe came to acquire ee “Rnanswer to this question wall throw the, required light on the subject. 1 ‘ (Is ita fact that Customary Law generally applies to the locality of the parties? The answer serves. our purpose. ' (aa) Is custom’gencrally observed their social and. family matiixs ? Hf'so the effect is quite clear = ; (a) What isthe history bebind the village where the tbibe “is living If the-history shows some traces of custom, it- serves the re~ quired purpore. ; lands) with’ their own. hands 2 1f its a fact in ane mis & rants, (@) Affamily migrating from one istrict to- aviother generally retains , thé'custom of its, original district unless it be shown ‘that it has adopted the custom of the new district. 1947 Lahore 49=53 [Link]. 36. (b) Where the family migrates from oneeprovinee to arother, the pre sumption is that the parties continue to folldw their ‘persona 1 customary law. 1939 Lab, 178 But it does not imply diat they retain their custom unchanged even after long residence among other tribes having different customs. 50°PLR I5t=AIR, 1949.E. P.37. The mere fact that a person governed by custom migrates to a. town or. temporarily ceases to. cullivate’ land would not be enough to justify the conclusion that he has ‘abai mary Jaw altogether. AIR 1944 Lah, 117, Pe ee * 5 : in + ch It Appliccbility of Customary Law icultural tribes adopting custom Effect of nos-24 i 21 riestly classes settle ‘Accordiig {0 1938 Lahore 214, where members of priest! 5 among agricultural. tribes and adopt their Customary Taw. and minister ake religious wants, the presumption is that they are governed by their Customary laws % Labais. (Bl&cksiniths) Gujjars (Milkmen) and Barbars, who are gene- rally governed by pall oe © {\vho settle and adopt the customs of the dominat tribes with who” they com=-to live, shall also be governed by ‘Customary Law. 1938 Lahore 461; 1934 Lahore 185. e-same pi i he of Aroras who are_ residing ‘The-same fersumnption arises i the case who ae sing in villages (not in toivns) and’ who have adopted the profess of agriculturists. . : 1937 Labore 500. 3, Abrogation of a Custom: Wwhas been held by the Full Bench of "1934. Lahore 371, that it is not op2n io any individual, whose fami- ‘ibe Hiad for generations followed custom to suddenly give up that jigh to that effect. The abro- AIR 1934 Lah. the Lahore High Court in ly certain custom by merely makiiig » declarat gation is to be inferred from continous course of conduct. TFB). Ii fiidia 9 custom may fall into disuse’ and be “stipseseded -by: another ‘custom according to the etfteal and legal notions of the community in which itis in force provided the existence of a substituted customn can be proved by a series of well known, concordant and on the whole continuous instances extending over a reasonable length of time. [Link], 1938 Lah. 680. The onvs of proving that a custom embodied in the Wajb-ubarz, and itis not discharged by meiely Gling *n° order of the Deputy Com missioner orderipg the ebrogation’ without showing liow the. order carhé to be passed. > < 1933 Lahore“757. ,- The fact that [Link] has not been exercised for Tony iy fea‘ resion for doubting Is exitence, hgh the fact conte” be said ag + ave,put an end to it. 52 Ind. C. 868. wt 6. The followingrare’ governed by. agricultural cistom :- Saraswat Brahmins of Gu oa rahinine ae 63 PR 1910=112 PLR Main families of Ajay In Amritsar’ disc. 110. PR Mohiyal Brahimins are agrieulturist, t mins are agri¢ulturist, “24 PR (AY Jat agricuiturists"of Ludhiana distict ATR 1982 LR 60, “Barbers of. Phullokhari, Distr ind ikon eae istrict Bhatinda are not, governed by custom tH ie eta aun a) xO ‘The Punjab Customary Law ch. Itt Rattan Singh ¥, Mvkand Lal,” 60 Pb, Law Reporte, 159. ‘Tarkhans of village Thulliwal , Tehsil Dhuri, District Barntla are sot governed by customary law but by’ Hindu Law in matters of alienation Chanan Singh ¥. Bishan Singh, TLR. 1957 Pb. 1748. Field that thre was no separate rule of general, custom in the erstwhile State of Pepsu and what is stated as rule of” succession in Raltigan’s Digest of Customary Law is applicable to the ethaologicel Punjab which Includes Pepsu so far as the general custom is concerned (Shamshec Bahadur‘J. 19 Mat. Giano. v. Dali Chand). 65 PLR 968. With the enactment of the o indy Marriage Act, “Hindi Succession Act, Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act and Hinda Minority and. Gavdian~ Ship Act the eutomary law as\ applicable to Hindus. has been roplace by these Acts in -maters covered’ by these Acts AF party fle to prove custom alleged by it» recourse has to b taken to personal law. Mot Sagar v. Para Res, 1960 PLIC EST, CHAPTER UI ‘TYPES OF CUSTOMS AND THEIR ESSENTIAL REQUISITES 1. Types of cvitom, Accustom conld be (1) General, (2) Local, (3) Tribal, (4) Special (5) Family ot (6) Mercantile, 2, General General custom, a3 if name implics is one that is applicable to all persons throughout the State ast ike the. cenaon Law of England. A ‘custom To be treated 38 general’ may not be an iramemoriatgusiom, Ifa cate ibe recomied by judial deasions and other can be. tbe notice of bythe court without the necessity of Jak . nding any farther. - Jah Sada Kaur. Wakhtawar Singh. AIR 1910 Punj, 259299" eieet E970 Cr. J 1=ILR (9d) 1 Pun} 663, Ako Ujaptr Shag ec Keo, AIR. 1939SC. 1041 age But there isno_general epstom prevalent in Punjab and Haryana’ él. so PR POH 17 Tan. 232/115 PR 1907. On the other Mohs aries from tribe to tls, pif to place or even fiom family to family-hough it-not bound by geographical or racial barrier. “1970 Cur. Loy ae ‘The Tew genera easoms that existed ih Punjab eg, widow is entity. ¢ only a life interest in her husband’s estate, or the cand we the sons whether from the Sante OF different motheds divide eld have. been abrogated ‘or doy th: general aslom among’ the agrieuteirat ‘atrial thereof, ao on is way out. Village Common Land Act 4 Ch. Types of Custom 9 3 Localtribal Costom, ‘A local custom, is confined_to_2 particular locality, like a district, tehsil Ora village, while a tribal custom postulates the observance_thereof Cm so different | bya particular _tibs_whetéver “it_may_live or even go and so different ‘bes Tiving ja one locality may be obsecving differvent customs. Ini practice the two types are neither typically distinctive: in water- tight compartments. A person having properties _in different localities ill ot subject these properties in accordance with The cus ailing in ~lorality. ATR ‘coming from anot ae il Be governed by the custom ofthe locality where he ha sted. ifatcibe or a person migrates from his ancestral home to_a new colony Mie—members of that ibe as. Tie cate may be,will be govertied i sly by the csonary lw prevaling a he lke To law prevailing:at the place of origin. 3 Lah. 370; AIR TI3O-Lan—761- Custom _cannot_be cast off like_a cloak at_one’s_volition still a tribe may abandon original customary nd=adopt the law of the Focality which may Take root with the passage of tims, ef. AIR 1944 Lah. U7. It eoukf be said without much fear of con- iradiction that custom. varies from tribe to tribe ‘one locality to another. 75 PR 1917; ATR 1964 SC 1821.” i 4. Special Custom, A special custom is applicable to_the inhabitants of particular place, gt & patil tube, set fay. ‘A patty pleading = spechal Gaston “plead it but also prove it unless it hasbeen recopnised in eciene? ia uch aTarge numberof cases. that no i sstablished to discharge the burden. Sada Kaur ¥. Bakbta 1970 Pun} 289=72 PLR 1=1970-CrLJ. 1 Where’a pa a eee cuibm there xa impli_amisog-that the cage tee een of ision_hotweea the parties. Jangir Singh v. Sucha Singh. 1970 Cur. LT fc Wise suo epatned f a dict of tbe assumed fom m,_chis wil prevails a_specll custom against a geaeral sustom Shee Gi Le ee ‘The special custom called ‘chundawand’ viz, distribution of pro} consiefing wives aa uu, iyespettive of the aber of sons Gach Has. pre alent amanz Rajputs of Malkotea family in Mauka Panjawac, dis trict Hoshiarpur must be considered obsolete with the ‘proimulgation ‘of Hinds ‘Suczession Act, but aay special custom among the Muslims here must be* sousidered to be prevalent still until abrogated or otherwise dying. _/ Where 00 the basis of an entry in rivaj-i-am of Gurgaon district it ssid hata Ja wit loses her estate on account of unchestiy, i was held ‘that in the absence of any other evidence of special custom among athe Jat ube of this district it cannot be said to have established merely on. the basis of entcicS in the Riwaj-i-am, Ghuray v. Mrs. Romali. 1969 Cut. LI. 678, 5. A family custom, > Gover a family or a small tribe... Unlike—atocal-custom. Dept io an cod AU LS Nag 13S SO Nop 6 : 6 Soi mercantile usages Carry the presumption of more than mere_practi s 0 They _h weight as legal authority only if they_satisty the usual requireneats of (oe [Link] being ©. Apesiod of 605 ‘The Punjab Customary Law OL wviverlly acquiesced in dat every bod in the oc mie ktow ithe fol paie Wenge, 16 . f St t sequently persons ignorant of mercantile -usage are not poi i: Bint Wh. Hoon marae usage of custom can Thong 9 comic the positive stipclations in a written eontract. ef Seo io Proviso 5 of Indion Evidence Act.) REQUISITES OF CUSTOM 21+ The essen rejuisites ofa valid esto are that it should be — 7h ANCIENT & IMMEMORIAL, 2. CERTAIN, DEFINITE & ENFORCEABLE, 3. INVARIABLE, 4. CONTINUOUS, 5. UNIFORM, 6. REASONABLE, 7 ESTABLISHED BY CLEAR & UNAMBIGUOS EVIDENCE. + But it should not be — 1. IMMORAL OR UNREASONABLE. AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, CONTRVENING ANY EXPRESS LAW. PECLARED VOID BY ANY COMPETENT AUTHORITY. before the passing of thesPunjab Laws Act ie, 283.1872, CONTRARY TO JUSTICE, EQUITY ON GOOD CONSCIENCE, BASED ON VIOLENCE AND USURPATION. 2 idk 4 6 2. Ancient & invariable. . For a cistom'to be’ recognised. and acted* ‘casamnesmawmsiscnas upon by’ the courts. it has.” to be proved. to be anciént, cerigin and. ,le_and where.-it is in derogation of general res of law ihas eee sirialy” cf Siromani Hem Kumar. AIR 1968 SC 1299=1968 MPLJ 103 “ALS 1025=190)BLIR 969, io, Be incient it is not aececeny that the ‘custom shoul! in, with the enojy of man. Its eantgh if ican. be shown thatthe cistom aealy prevalh and is eeially Chana ieee Upan the Seaman et each case what anilquity wnt be established belie the A codon ust be anciegt buh is not of the exsenog af that it amtquty must, in every-oase, be carried Bick to 4 cesod™ ‘the memory of man, still less’ Urte-it “is ancient ifthe: Hits 2 sens. YAIR 1941 BEDI, AN years. was “held syficient fo show. that the gustom is binding. AIR 1937 Lah, 805, Uniformity of abt ipulates that there i i i Ch. IT Types of Customary Law n should be nochange in its existente, Any changes ‘ill’ weaken its binding force, but the onus of proving a change lies on the party asserting the change. Sjnce its ancient ofigin it shor ved wit intercuption. If itis not exercised fc ime, there is @pood reason for_doubting_its existence. The onus of. proving ik. upon the party asserting it 132 IC 804. 5. Reasonablenisi A yalid custom h Je_though_reasoiing plays tio past inwaking such a custom. 1912 [ ah. 286. A custom Sale ea if itis onresOnable thong it tay be of long standing, sop could. be due to accident ot influenced by indulgence. The ‘unreasonablenes: His to be Judged by Iegal re:soning warranted be authority of law. A custom which is prejudicial to a class and is beneficial only to an iodividal is repughanit to the law of reason, c.f. 45 Cal. 475. be i wareasoosble curiom snot given eect to lid if it_contravenes..any_expcess_lav—or_if_ it by any competeat muthoriy. ef. 1934(03) Lah 425 (FB) to justice, equity or good conscience, The period: for ascertaining the reasonableness of a custom is the time of its inception, AIR 1937 Cal. 245. 51 Mad. ? page 25 ‘A reasonable custom is for the good of the whole commiusity and not for the benefit of a siagle individual only. 49 P.R. 1897. 4. Examples. A custom entitling a petsom to take his. watercourse through the lands of another. on paymeat of compensation is reasonable and therefore valid. 37 PR 1899. That a tenant is not able to pay rent to the landlord for the year in * ‘which therg is an inundation is unreasonable. 1934 Cal. 452 A. custom® of ‘Dhadwani” (a. sole- to weigh and wneasure and Procure customers for commodities imported into. the market)-is- not unteasonable. 98 IC 759. : A:custom regarding the loss of proprietary rights by Malik ig his land which has been submerged, 1s primaclace inequtble BQ Gay + Meverthcless be enfogced by the Courts if satisfactorily 7 ain absolutely unreasonable custom, 18 PR 1914, A seemingly reasopable custom may be immoral and against put Ae icy and ‘therefore invalid. @ | Policy and thetefose inva Gopee Cate | ‘Photostat @ 50. pp ‘A custom that a inatried woman’ may without the perm fhusbanid, leave bim aid in his life tiie contiact a secon wa with another man is immoral and- aot énforéeable. 49 PR 1890, 93 Instances of Inamorsl Castomss of het marriage PR 1896, ~ proved.” Itis not “+ to public policy. 106 PR 1879. i its a dissotati ec murriage tie by any A Hindu custom which permits a dissolution of th age tie by any of the couple without the with of the other, the sole condition being the ity, is void because payment of money fixed by the community, is. 0 ‘and opposed to public policy. 1939, Bom. 538. it i m contracts. a marriage A custom among the prostitutes that if one of them contracts she forfeits slight in her erginal family (ie. she- practically becomes am ‘out-caste) is not valid. that the heirs ofa prostiaite who have contracted “marriage carded the proeston of prostutes are also disqualified fvvin nhieiing her v R “The Punjab Customary Law av. * ‘The custom of selling daughters for consideration is bad and is. opposed | estate even if they be prossitute. [Link]; 1928 Lahore 526. | CHAPTER PROOF OF CUSTOMS: 1. General. An alleged custom in order to be valid, must be proved by testimony. to have bees obeyed. from consciousness of its obligatory charscter and not as_a mere convention or an arrangement by mbtWsl consent. ‘The mark Which imparts ita legal stats is the opinér nece-si is, the recognition that there is authority behind it. K. K:Kochunni v. K. K\ Parvati Neither, (971) 1 SCI 28. i 2. Ons. - There is a presumotion of the’ existence Of custom asinyng the. Jats + of Cofteal disuiets of Panjab as also. among some other agricultural titee that they are peverned by eastowany lav. The presumption. i sronbey ‘only, if the Village is, homogenous unit inhabited by” persons of ‘osly one tribe, butt weakens where the members” have taken up non-core, gultural pursuits fora ving though partially” supplcmenting thelr mates from fand.. This presumption. imay' be ‘considered to be nonexistent ig the ease of non-agricultural tikes. c.f. 1952 Pepsu 10. Inthe last mene tioned ‘case the onus will be on the party asserting its existence. ATR 1961 SC.1374, ~The facts that a person is = ishave to be proved like. other all depends. 53 PLR 335 (FB) tis pot eecesory that a family which: obseries. a customnaty rule ji ~*One- particular, matter is necessarily governed by. a in 7 ~ matters, 211.6, 944,, 1923 (4) Lahore 254-6 Lah. 924, sea eas governed by custom and. what custom leged facts on which granting of the relief 1 Chav Proof of Custom 7 | ,., Normally the initial onus of custom is om the plaintiff who urges it in his favour, but this is easily discharged in. most. cases by proving the relevant entry im riwaj-i-2m in support of the custom. AIR 50 Sim. 239= 52 PLR 369. But failure to prove a custom does not mean that there is o custom and personal law must be applied. 94 Ind.C. 148, ‘An cstablished principle is that a party relying om custom bas to plead io specific terms the custom he i relying on and. he must also prove it. He cannot be premitted to prove a custom not pleaded by him. This principle has a sound base that is to say the person who urges a | ststom ‘must prove by satisfactory evidence the existence of the custom pleaded, its continuity and consistency with which it is being observed. A party against whom a custom is pleased must have a notice of the case he has to meet. Kochan Kani’ vy. Mathevan Kani. AIR 1971 SC 1398=1971 KLT 458— { { i 971 SCD 793. A custom in derogation of general rules of law must be construed strie- ty and the person pleading it, has the burden to establish it. Udai Swain ¥. Satya Swaani (1970) 36 Cut. L.T, 1330. In the case of non-agriculturist tribes the presumption is against custom unless itcan be shown that they have been subsisting on_agriculturc for a | long time and not for afew generations only and they form a compact | village community. AIR 1949 EP 867=53 PLR 335. Where the collaterals urged the existence of 2 special custom abrogating. the general custom favouring daughter's succession to father’s self-acquired property, it was held tnat the initial onus must be on the collaterals and hough the initial présumption is in favour of the-entry- in riwaj-i-om this resumption is very weak since it affects adversely the rights of the females. ; Kehar Siggh v. Chanan Singh. AIR 1968 SC 806 = 1968 Cus. L. J. 436 « (1968) 2 SCR 651. < 3. Tools for proving @ custom. ‘ (b) Written memorials like wajtb-u-arz or Riwaj-i-Am, (©) Judicial decisigns. Item (a) is based on certain provisions'f the Indian Evidence Act i.e. Sections 48 and 49, which give credeace £0. the opigion of the person likely to know of its existence or having special means -of knowledge thereon, Sections 32 gives reliance to the statements of pegions who are dead or whece attendance cannot be procured or procured with great delay or expense, pro- Vided the statements were made before the-Lontroversy arose and’ they were likely to know the existence or nos-Existemee of that custom, Section 15 recognists transactions in which the custém in Question was qaimed, Tecognised, or in which its exercise was’ disputed; asserted or denied of which was inconstent with its existence, 14 ‘The Punjab Customary Law chiv ‘The following points should be kept in_mind when proving custom: @ Qe ® Sa 6) © am ® 4, . Revenue Records. +> 2G): Riwoj-fam is a public. rcp¢d. prepared by Government (seetion 11 of ni ine aie. ed erred ty Gereument Gosien of Punjab. Itis admissible as an eyideitce of the facts, stated therein, The entries made therein ate- a strong pisce of evidence presumed to be éorrect unless rebutied. 45 PR 1917, AUR 1926 Lah: 142, statement i :-Am opposed to gencral custom though unsupported by instances possesses much evidentiary: value, AIR. 1928 Tahore 893; 62 PLR 429 and carries initial presamption of correctness. Sada Kaur v. Bakhtawar Singh. 1970 Cur LJ. LAIR 1970 Pus}. 289 (F. B,) ‘The statements in Riaj-i Am may be,rebiitted if from an examination of other portions it may be shown that it has not been compiled carefully or that for some other reason it is nota reliable record. 1927 Lah, 241; 1935 Lah. 834. The presumption in favour of such statements is weak enough so that the onus of rebuttal would be_ slight. But if» certain portions are Custom ia» maitée of proof of fact and not of logic. 48 PR. 1903 €. B), 1908 Lah. 366 It is not based on [Link] conjecture. 12 Lah. 286. Tt is not @ gume of conclusions. 1927 Ldh. 441 Evidence is the only proof of ctisiorm AIR 1923 Lab. 175. ‘Custom should be taken as it exists. 48 P.R. 1916. ‘What the custom ought to be is not to be judged by a court I7P.R. 1919 (FB). “Whe court has to see wihiit the custom actually is. ‘The courts cannot deduce the existence of one custom from that another. : siuopie proved defective this does notnceessarily mean or prove unreliability of the other portions. 1929 Lah, 162*°1933 Lah. 612; 1935 -Lab, .106; 1937 Lah. 648; 61 PLR 126. The presumption in favour of entries in Riwaj-i-dm ‘will be heavier in respect of members of the tribe consulted at the. time of the preparation thereof and weaker in. respect of other cases. 53, PLR. 335 E.B. They will be weaker still where entties adversely affect fernales who had no chauce to urge theie cases. 1965 PLR 42. Where an [Link] Rivaj-i- | ‘Am showed the cxclusion of daughter fgom self-acquired property this will | raise an ‘nitial presumption but [Link] considerably weak since it adversely Affects the rights of females. Kear Singh v. Chanan Singh. AIR1968 SC. + 806==1968 Cur. L.J. 436=(1968) 2 SCR 651. ‘The earlier Rinaj-i-Am generally Serves as 4 seful check om the statte-i went made in the later Rivoj-i-Am,, because the older villagers are suppos- - edly less sophisticated and less susceptible to interested motives. AIR 1936i; ars = Lah. 68. ‘will -prevail, other things Demag” £ a conflict between the focal and district Riwa-i-Am, thi tak The entri chy Proof ef Custom 5 &. iwoji-Am have precedence over the statement in Rattigan Digest. 1966 a M$54--1966 Cur, LJ. 472. Spi Kaur v. Sher Singh, ALR 3960 $.C. 1118 If the riwaj-i-am which is -to be relied, upon has not been prepared carefully aad contains contradictory statementsabout that custom. and the Settlement Officer considers that it ‘does not properly. reflect the ‘opinions or Wishes of the people appearing before him it will losé "its presumptive ¢¥ identiary value. AIR 1949 EP 262. It is not’a universal view that the eotry in rivaj-J-oni should not be BIveD any importance if it is not supported by instances. On the ‘other hand such ‘nity docs raise a presumption in favour of custom stated therein and if ffis festom is confined toa. district or a tribe it serves as special custon® hi doe eld against a general custom. In view of this the onus of, proving {hat unchastity of 2. widow docs not eniail forfeiture of her Wife ete sests on the party which challenges the riwaj-tam. Mst- ‘Batherl v. Shér Singh. 1969 Cur. LJ. 38. : (i) Wofib-ul-arz, or village administration paper is a statement of cus- toms respecting rights and liabilities in am estate and presumption of truth Mtaches fo it, (section 31 read with section 44 of the Punjab Land Re stir Act. The entries made. therein are presumed correct (AIR 1957 SF 386) even if unsupported'by instances (49 PR 1898)-unless rebutted (13, PR 7875 and 8PR 1903). In the case of a conflict ia"the, entries of wojibouk-eft and riwaj-i-om the former carries greater weight; ILR 2 Lah. 346. but wajib-ul~ ‘entries are not repeated in the farz holds for a particular’ settlement. If the ¢ fater document it has little evidential value. 24nd. C. 944.°° ~"* ym and wajib-ul-urz both refer only to ances here are clear indications to the con 62 PLR 857." But so far as ‘The statements in Riwe tral immovable property unless trary. AIR’ 1932 Lab. 353.” 1959 PLR621 ; Punjab State (and ‘not Haryana) is concerned the distinction betwee’ Fhoestsal and self acquired property has besm done away with by Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Amendment Act, (No. 12) of .1973_by which Sction 6 of the Punjab Custom (Powé? to Contest) Act, 1920 was omit: tej and section “7 thereof was so amended as to put the ancestral and Jign-ancestral properties _on the same footing for. the purpose of alienation. ‘he result of omission’ of section 6 read with amendment to, section 7 “of thie Act is that the power to edntest “any alienntion of immovable. pro,perty Of appointment of heft to such property cannot be contested 6M the grovad that it f opposed to custom. Thus custom in respect of these Bets has been abrogated in the, State of Punjab. “Phe documents carrying a presumption of authority. are the, ued ‘version of rivaj--am and the’ Manual ‘of Customary Law in, English, in’ the sndtter of custom, prevailing among agricultural tribes living in rural afeas. SES PUR BIS CB PE A A yt ® Manualé of customary law stand on about the same footing as tho fivoj-om itself even, in the absence of -a.“copy of the. latter. AIR 1944 Lal 112; and an English version of such manual should carry a gfea- i weil rouid that ‘it isthe later draft.” AIR 1945 Lah 117; | x 1g ‘The Punjab Customary Law ch, AIR 1939 Lah. 432. The pedegrce tables, (shajra nasab) contained in the record of rights also carries similar authority but not it respect of ‘extraneous matters unconneted with relationship. AIR 1924 Lah. 444. serinacial presumption, attaches in favour of s0ch documents. 62 PIE 429, dud they ate presumed correct unless they are proved to be ‘untrustworthy. 1958 PLR 156. ‘5, Juidicial pronouncements. Judicial decisions furnish ‘reliable instancos wherein the questi of wm was raised and was. either recognival or deprsted from. Oral or ‘PetOmentary evidence of mutations and other transactions in conseqir” docmtereatarealo relevant. to prove ot disprove a custom. | 1966 ‘Cur. $755 72. Ajudicial decison in 2 contsied case, supported by, instore and Riwai ib-ulatz furnishes an exellent evidence of custom ‘AIR 1956 Punjab 19; 1954 (56) PLR 507. : Custom is proved (1 by instanéssdetually brought on record in 2 parti cur case, or is aleady judicially noticed filing that, (2) opinion of Oe tribe caeand fu Rivaj-Am, Inthe absence of supporting mstances the entry as Tota) fam should prevail, as against judicial opinion unsuppor-ed By Snotences or tibet opinion, Suk v. Baryaur Singh. ALR 195? Pubjab 359 = 61 PLR-291 (FB). Judgmentsin other cases'on the point of custom are admissible in evidence under section 13. of Hvidenee Act as instances in which the Etstom in question was judicially recognised. Dot it is rebuttable by adducing fresh evidence to show that the custom jas mot corcectt) ascertained in those cases; or that it had since been tO ATR, 1933 Lahore 553... AIR 1934 Lahore’ 861, and also under " Metion 42, Evidence Act, as un evidence of the custém Repetition of Custom proves it, Whed a custon is repeatedly ascer~ + taingh Jadierly, and acted ‘upon the production of such eRiical decisions FPaicent to proveethecustom. AUK 135 ators 302 A court can ake ficial notice of a custom where it has been repeated doust. AIR 1959 SC 1041. peatedly. reeognistd by The value of cach dvsion depends opon is own’ merits “A judgment” tosed upod a compromise or. confession, although of some peobatjve force, Pranot be placed im the- same category as the one in, whick aftorcontest it Qwas held to be proved or negatived. 2 Lahore 88; 3 Lahore 136, 4 kahore 176. ‘A-muere decision that 2 certain custom is not proved: is not off any p calat force ina subsequent, case, for obviously one man. may won Jock more than another man, A méte ngative finding. would not co titute a RES JUDICATA. 14 Lahore 365. : ne LUncooteed instances about cusiom are fat stronger than the coatested [Link] not disprove the custom. Uncontested Chiv Proof of Custom W Tree the cxeg, ood Proof of any alleged custom, for the greater the streng- th of the custom. the less probability is there for any ‘body. altemplne to controvert it. 7 Lahore 127 If no appeal has been made to the Court, itis surely a strong point in favour of the existence of the custom and its recognition in the tribe. 94 P. 1907. | Judicial decisions furnish excellent evidence of custom as dcorees ta se al sngest, idence of instances in which the right was, recognised. Sardul Singh vs, Nand Kaur. ILR 1957, Pun 2030. ystom is not always logical and Courts cannot extend it by analogy. 1930 Lahore 295. 1931 Lah 708. 1936 Lahore 878. 194): Lahore SY, Gustom is a question of fact_and not of inferences. 1939 Lahore 259, 1940 Lahore 51 {There is no presumption in favour of the existence of custom, It de- nds on facts which must b: decided by evidence and not on conjecture, 1938; Lahore 166; 1928 P.C. 294 Ik i outside the jurisdiction of the Courts to extend custom by the brocess of deductions from the principles which seem to underie ci vats ‘Which have been definitly established. 1921 Lah 176, Custom depends upon (acts and instances. Where the instances proved in favoii of the plaintiff are more mimerous. then those. proved in eves pf the. defendants the custom must be taken to be ‘that im favoue rote Plaintifi. 1935 Lehore 428. A single instencs, however, valuable, cannot be considered 10 be a sufficient proof ofthe tit that the parties are yoverned by Cintonaty Pane 1923 Lahore 6; 1931 Lahore 315. When cither party to 2 suit’ sets up custom as a cule of davision it His ‘upon him 40 prow she custom which he seeks to apply (Unf Seose AK. Sarkar and K- Subba Rao 1.) Ujngar Singh wes aise ‘Supreme Court 1041 ak cstablshed thar custom cannot be extended by og PLR 729. Aa instance of custom when supported by other meyeee ~_ besomes more ealrenched bi whers the igstancs itself of ne ance fact that ithas discussed or noticed other instances would, hardy eee its vulue. 62 PLR 429. i OF analogy 63 [The prof of eusiom atone plac does not hold dood Custom in Punjab changes from district to district and pargans te Mara v. Nikko alias Punjab Kaut- AIR. 1964 SC 1821 = 1964 Gres > 292 (SC). The existence of a custom around a particular distin is « wicca ~ Consideration for holding that such 2 custom may ‘be prevalent ia the at trict also. Gurdt Singh v- Angrez Kaur, AUR 1968 SC 142. Where sean: 's repeatedly ued before the courts it should be considered to be mueheont into law without the necesity of proof in exch ease. AIR 1962 SC Lip for anbther place, So far as the States of Punjab and Haryana are concerned the te custom Brevaiting is uibal with occisional local variations. among maemiey 8 of the 8 “The Punjab Customary Law ch same community, In view of this the evidence of custom prevailing in a particular district has a definie bearing [Link] custom amon, thas com- ‘munity in another district. Amar Chand v. Mst Shanksic AIR 1956 Raj SI: CHAPTER ¥ MARRIAGE, DOWER AND DIVORCE. 1. Nustomary manage. try notion of Hindu macriage is one of the sacraments 466 the regenerdtion of the twice-bom, Certain prohibited degiees guity ha beet” revognised, for instance” psrsous of -the Sap “Ot mae but these notions: ate now practically. dscardg except by the’ available usd according to ts iS ypiaiory Hicks Law. Sow byé d pcinciples of marriage on are recognised, which are syfmed up as. under; ‘he forms fl matciagy ial, Mserved among the agrieultral tribes ae chiefly -Anand/marcinge and keréma\by chadlar widarn. “The rst one 18 pero adda sie of riage ond is galy seopnied fom among the its. 1910 Lah 372. . second a petal type of- widow comart ies pfx wth he Botlge oss other bea le re the deceased husband: The macridge Woes not entail any religious cere: fies ut takes plc: by towing chaddd\ (shect of eloch) on the woman | ~ if the presen: of tic community, and Anessa the parents) his\brother takes. the muklava this will tantamouat to karewa WAT Lah. 612. Besides these there is a custom’of sagorra marriage amon)\ the Vaish Agarwals. No stigma attaches to such a marriag, and the progen; is legitimate. 1933 Lab. 585. Among jats Yo ceremonies are considered essential for the /perfor- mance of widow's\ remarriage, particularly when the second hySband is the brother of the Yirst.. Mere cohbit husband and wife. of her late husband. 1 ¥. Gurdial Singh. Al he rel fonship of here the widow had conti ‘proved remarriage between the two. 1961 Pun}. 301 (F.B.) ay Marriage, Dower and Divorce » rmaklawa (tN ceremony of bringing home the bride after her first visit to. her i . | f maciages, For instance attied a jheyAri, by chadder andazi, lived as husband and wife for some yegrs and had/a child of the wnion,. it was hheld valid. From a marriage of a it boy wigh a girl of a class like nai, jhewar, ‘or Kaial, the childcea willbe legit\nate yhether or not a formal “chaddot J anfesi fad taken place. 73 PR NOT. Aimar is the position of jat with [Keli gist: 79 PR 1910. A Broa may marty Rojpurn. 48 PR {1890 ;and so may Rajput manry a aurani. 57 PR 1909." But a Buju or | Diawani Rajput cannot marry a fAahmin woman. 29 PR 1883. $1 PR 1893. | Korewa mars iage is not peryftMl among. Brahmins and Rajputs. of Punjab: born to it. 22PR 1873: 57PR. < 1893; 13 PR 1885, t Where 2 jat ale took, Widow as his wife and she was were treated to “be legitimate - ede hadnt taken pace. 50, een y Minhas: Rajput and a STP. Bog, an PR. 1900. A chaddar ayflaz! macriage Matiajan woman of Gujcaf District-was upheld Karewa between £ Jhabor Rajput and A\Zharkhan widow’ was’ ld: valid. 65P.R. 1ST i was held. A marriage beyfeen a Hindu Sikh Jat and Sikhism is valid, A marvin korea form i Of a kiatc: kuka Sikh and a tarkkoni Sa jo Z foo invalid. 15 PLR 1907 ieywocay first illegality 140 Ind, by a miasrid woman, 3 Lahore) Among Si ree to re-marry” at ‘another man without of such a union is legit ding, Fist husband’s consent ‘Widow's Karewa-marriage with @ forfeiture of life-estage. in the right to future succession qua the husbai Dhan Kaur. 61 Pb. Law Reporter 163; PR. 1888. |} an ante-ouptial agreement providing 1 husbadd contracting a second marriage fe from conjugal restraint, was hold to b: fontral 115 PR. 1900. 20 P.R. 1878. ul ‘marr that she has the right to repud * 1926 Lahore 263. 6.,, Resttuton,of conjugal rights. “ where after” separatig conjugal rights the ‘court fnusband (and to some €) ing disentitle him am causing perpetual cruel agai “restitution of conf ts, a woman expelled yen a ceremony of aie 177 P-R 1913. to custom. > 7-339. 1¢ husband’s and ‘A gitl who is unaware of her//marriage iberty retains her option of whether the restitutipn shot Cruelty on the pa ty. 1921125) 4 6 ast a wile. bey jage and the option is prologt f repyfiation unt te the marti _ from wife the husband wants t will take ito consideration the cont mit of the wi"e) before they fell apart in dPexin- uld be granted. eoessary to the validity of ther of her Pash frandur district a_custd ch The Punjab Customary Law and repudiated by She may become # f Chaddar Andazi an her husband is awful wife oF 1d the of sprig, for the forfeitwe of Bt Foperty Gurdialo vs. Mst- oon EPL R. 1915 and 17 such act tin the event of th: intend>4 Hest wife was to be released to public policy and invalid al when she attains til sh\becomes aware of the red until the giel is yquainted with the Fact iage 1925) Lahore LJ. 473 reestablish of the of husband is one of the chief causes which would reliel from & court. Frequent groundless beating apprehension and unhappiness amounts to 1109. Whereas unfounded accusation of adultery a legalcruclty, disenttls a husband to get a decree. of igal rights, (1927) 101 -Ind. C.:261 and (1926) Ls Ind C. hie charge of adultery is substantiated this open accusation not ampfint to cruelty. Apostacy among the Hindus does. not cancel 49 PR 3907; ay, Marriage, Dower and Divoreé a Ina suit by a hdyband for restitution of conjugal rights, < oat mes ‘refuse to give any relict. the husband if the conduct of the ‘letter has i ‘Such as to show that he {as intentionally permitted or connived at his — adultery for a considerab¥y period or if the huchand has ethene gros ly neglected his marital duti towards his wife 150 P.R. 1884. 95 P. R. 2 Among Hindu jats of ROWtek a minor husband is not entitled to the ‘custody of a Where the parties were Mul tainor of eight or ten years of age, refuse the relief prayed for nd that i refused. 23 PLR. 1919, 46 P.R. 1916.3 Court had a discretion to. grant or hat particular case it had been rightly PAR. 1894. The Court must be. satisfied that 1 fovfet his ight to such special relief by tiesto his wife. 95 P-R 1898. ‘Among the orthodox Hindus of Punjab a male (1) a mother : (2) a sister, (3) a father's sister; (4) 2 brother's daughter ; (6) a mother’s sister's daughters daughter, but may’ marry: a mother’s brother's, dain sister's davghtcr or with’ sister's daughter according to) of certain Schools. [Cunningham's Digest) innot by custonrmarry mother’s sister j (5) 2 father's brother Yer and father's modern practice Dower as such is known onfy yader the, A fair amount of dower 18 considered ence to the woman, the amount o 1880 5 SPR 1891." Non-payn PR 1864; 14 PR 1a91, wer and what is customary None aforompt‘dower vill bar reaatone? EO 8. Divorce. * s la divorce was customary. AIR 1959 Punjab. 5$3-,Similar was the exe ct Jallanc a and GiStiets_sncsounding it. The husband. could urn out he ign who. could thereafter remasry-64 PLR 1179. “Thig was afiemed by Sumcre Court hold.” ing that the Hindu Jats of Jullundur dsrit observe hereunder ike husband may divores his wife and dissolve the may d divorced wi may TREN Feary during the ile time” of the, rt abana cee ‘singh The Punjab Customs Law rez Kaur. AIR 1968 SC_142=(1967) SCR 789. Similar ‘ists _amonpst_ Sainis of Gurdaspur Tehsil_who mai * Wife and\tepudiate hor in the “presence of the vill divorce bedpmes effective. ILR (1985) > Pujab 330. A. Gre cof Litthiansnkiy ‘cording to'a custom divorce his wife” but Anly_on the. grounds of ulchastity am —In-thiscaseit was held hat where the husband has \ight-to abandon of vepidiate his wife he Aannot dissolve marriage merWy by repudiating at his will for no ‘reason Ar even for iso- Bedience or er iy: especially when there is. no alleg: fon of immorali het: Jagjit Singh v. Smt. Mohinder aur 1968 Cur. Le is nominally. impossible of man turning out hyfwife, wh could thereafter remarry is ‘well ecoQnised. ‘The institution gf divorce by'such sepodiation widely prevails in the Vistricts of Ferozepur/Jullundur, Ludhiana, Ambala, eto Tarkhans. being Srudras do not obsglve Hindu lsiv” and such agricul tural custom applies to Sem: Mal'Singh #. Rem Kaur 1972 Cur. LJ. 22). red, with the enforcement of the ‘ & ‘either of the spouse to pel divorce ‘on the grounds mentioned i Sectioy( 13 thercor. yng the Jats and other 9. Requisites of Vatid Castelagey Marriage 5 The characteristics Ora + 2 Religious form: _** Only 2n ordifary ceremony ike Chiddac andezi may be observed in . of marriage. PyAsumption of marriag’ arises fife and husband. Co-habitation for a long period is Dlishes marriage. . ustom is allowed to remary marriage contracted by @ Muslim-widow ‘thin the period of ddar valid. (Under ‘Shariyat* it is forbidden.) 9. Customury Law puts certain restrictions on these. are— (a) Partits'must not be related: to cach’ ‘other wit of cotsangunity. —* 102 P. R. 4919. Thus a” “ . (2. The right of “representation exits, By this ‘right, desen B Customary Inheritance ‘or guardian's ep vient 154557 (&)Pattieg mest be of follag: oF pire! the parties are minors stowed, CHAPTER VE CUSTOMARY INHERITANCE 1, Introduction. ‘The ‘rule of succession according to custom is obsolete or dead now. {The entre syecessio is determined. by the provisions of the Hindu Sucecs- Hon Act 1956 and the customs and usages playing so vital a. rule before the enforcement of this Act have all been abrogated unless, expressly pr sled for in is Act. Such savings in favour of custom are ‘few, if any. The custom that posthumous child is eatitled.-to succeed. to bas Biba estate) Dev Nandan v. Dashrath. 1971 R. D. 269). hs been. provided for the Hindu Succession Act, section 20, However” th: old cases in which the succession opened before the enfo:cement of this Act will still-be governed by custom where applicable 2 Rules of succession under custom, According to Sir William Raitigan, the [Link] the Digest of Puniab Customary Law, amongst the azricuburise: of Punjab, there are the following leading rules of “succession which govern succession and. inheritance Tegarding ancestral Jand under the customary law. J. Male descendants “invariably exclude the widow and all other relations. In other words it follows that acconding t© customary. law the

You might also like