Case Details

Citation(s)
1949 SLG 21 1949 SLD 21 1949 PLD 427
Lahore High Court
Second Appeal No. 1938 of 1946, decided on 14th July 1949, from the decree of Additional District Judge, Lahore, at Kasur, dated the 18th April 1949
CORNELIUS AND KAYANI, JJ
B. Z. Kaikaus and A. R. Niazi for Appellants. Iftikhar-ul-Haq Khan for
Respondents

Mst. AZIZAN and others

VS

UMRA and another(--Plaintiff)

Law:

Section:

Custom (Punjab) -Succession--- ---Arains of Chak No. 2 (Abbot­tabad) (Tahsil Chunian, District Lahore Daughters have a preferential right to succeed to ancestral land as against collaterals. It is satisfactorily established on the basis of instances recorded in the Riwai-i-am as well as by judicial instances of published cases as well as other s which have been led in evidence by the defendants, that in Chak No. 2 Abbottabad as well, the daughters of a deceased Arain have a preferential right to succeed to his ancestral land as against his collaterals. 174 P R 1889 ; A I R 1928 Lah. 870 ; A I R 1935 Lah. 532 ; I L R 14 Lah. 651 ; A I R 1941 P C 21 ; A I R 1943 Lah. 154 referred to. A I R 1936 Lah. 418 disapproved. JUDGMENT CORNELIUS J.-The suit out of which this appeal arises related to about 89 kanals of land situated in Chak No. 2 also known as "Abbot­tabad" and "Nizampura" in the Chunian Tahsil of the Lahore district which was part of the estate left by one Chaughatta, an Arain Chaughatta died leaving him surviving his mother Mst. Fatto, his widow, Mst. Sultan Bibi and three minor daughters, Mst. Azizan, Mst. Shadan and Mst. Sughran, Chaughatta on the 1st August 1939, made a will leaving the suit property to his wife Mst. Sultan Bibi. After his death the property was mutated in Mst. Sultan Bibi's name. On the 15th November 1941, Mst. Sultan Bibi, who has since remarried, purported to make on oral gift of the entire property in favour of her three daughters. Umra plaintiff, who is brother to Nathu, father of Chaughatta, thereupon brought a suit for certain declarations in respect of the suit property, viz. firstly, that the oral gift of 1941 in favour of Chaughatta's daughters would not affect the reversionary interests of the plaintiff after the deal of Mst. Fatto and secondly, that the will made by Chaughatta, was opposed to custom and was without effect as against the plaintiff's reversionery interests. It is alleged that the suit property was ancestral qua the plaintiff and both the Courts below have found to this effect. Mst. Sultan Bibi contended that under special custom applying to Arain, Chaughatta was competent to make a will of his ancestral…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492