# MARA AND OTHERS v. NIKKO AND OTHERS

- **Citation:** [1964] 7 S.C.R. 430
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1964-03-24
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 490 of 1962
- **Bench:** M. Hidayatullah, N. Rajagopala Ayyangar
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/mara-and-others-v-nikko-and-others-3142
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Inheritance-Jhalli Jats of Tahsil Ludhiana-Properties
Ancestral or non-Ancestral-Whether Sister excludes collaterals.
Claiming inheritance to the properties of one P-a Jhalli
J at of Ludhiana TehsiL the respondents, who were P's sister
and sister's son filed a suit against the appellants-P's collaterals.
The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit and an appeal to the
I1istrict Judge was dismissed. They held that the lands in suit
were not ancestral and that there was no evidence to show that
among the Jhalli Jats of Ludhiana collaterals excluded sisters
and sister's son in respect of non-ancestral property. An appeal
to the High Court was also dismissed.
Held: (i) Where lands are so mixed up that the ar.cestral
and non-ancestral portions cannot be separated they must be
regarded as non-ancestral unless it is shown which are ancestral
and which are not.
Avtar Singh v. Thakar Singh, 35 I.A 206, applied.
Land ceases to be ancestral if it comes into the hands of any
owner otherwise than by descent.
Inder Singh v. Gulzara Singh, AI.R. 1951 Punj. 345, Saif-ulRahman v. Mohammad Ali Khan, I.L.R. 9 Lah. 95 and Jagtar
Singh v. Raghbir Singh, I.L.R. 13 Lah. 165, referred to.
(ii) The application of the personal law to "the family by
the courts below was correct and paragraph 24 of Rattingan's
Digest which excludes sisters from inheritar.ce from non-ancestral property is too widely stated.
Ujagar Singh v. Mst. Jeo, [1959) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 781 and
Waryam Singh v. Smt. Sukhi, CA No. 452/61 decided on 23-4-1963
(non-reportable) referred to.
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 490
of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated October 20, 1959 of the Punjab High Court in Regular
Second Appeal No. 1591 of 1959.
Kartar Singh Chawla and Harbans Singh, for the appellants.
I. M. Lal and M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondents.
March 24, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ritlayatvllah,J.
HIDAYATULLAH, J.-This is a defendants' appeal by
special leave against the order of the High Court of Punjab
dated October 20, 1959 dismissing summarily second appeal
filed by the appellants. The suit was filed by the respondents
for possession of a plot, a house and a Taur and half share in
certain lands as preferential heirs of one Pohla after the death
r-
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
431
1964
of Pohla's widow Punjab Kaur on February 7, 1952. The
plaintiffs are Mst. Nikko, sister of Pohla and Jarnail Singh,
son of Mst. Har Kaur who was another sister of Pohla. The
first appellant Mara is a collateral of 4th degree of Pohla and
the other two appellants are Mara's sons. The following genealogy gives the relationship of the parties: -
Mara and Other•
v.
Niikl:o OlMi Or1.
I
Sohela
I
PirBux
I
Mara
defendant No. 1
I
:MohindL Singh
defendant
No2
I
Major Singh
defendant
No. 3
Sultani
Pohla
(son)
I
Shrimati
Punjab Kaur
widow
I
Baghaila
I
Jaimal
I
Mat. Har Kaur
(daughter)
I
Jarna.il son of
Arjan Singh
Plaintiff
No.2
I
I
Sunder
died sonle88 and
wifeless
I
Mat.Nikko
alia.s Punjab Kaur
(daughter) wife of
S&nta Singh J &t,
resident of Ayali
Kalan,
Plaintiff
No. I.
The parties are Jhalli lats of village Chomon, Tehsil and
District Ludhiana. The plaintiffs claimed that the property was
non-ancestral and according to the Riwaj applicable to the·
family, sisters excluded collaterals in respect of both ancestral
and non-ancestral properties. It appears that after the death
of Panjab Kaur, Mara got one of the fields mutated in his
own name and thereafter took possession of the whole pro.
perty. He made gifts to his sons of some of the properties a.nd
that is why they were joined in the suit. Mara and his elder
son Mohinder Singh filed a joint written statement in which.
they raised many pleas the details whereof need not be given
here. They claimed that according to the custom applicable
to the family, sister and sister's sons were excluded from inheritance in respect of properties whether ancestral or nonancestral. They ,however claimed that th

## Text

1964
Jlll«AU
430
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964)
MARA AND OTHERS
v.
NIKKO AND OTHERS
(M. HIDAYATULLAH AND N. RAJAGOPALA AYYANGAR, JJ.]
Inheritance-Jhalli Jats of Tahsil Ludhiana-Properties
Ancestral or non-Ancestral-Whether Sister excludes collaterals.
Claiming inheritance to the properties of one P-a Jhalli
J at of Ludhiana TehsiL the respondents, who were P's sister
and sister's son filed a suit against the appellants-P's collaterals.
The Subordinate Judge decreed the suit and an appeal to the
I1istrict Judge was dismissed. They held that the lands in suit
were not ancestral and that there was no evidence to show that
among the Jhalli Jats of Ludhiana collaterals excluded sisters
and sister's son in respect of non-ancestral property. An appeal
to the High Court was also dismissed.
Held: (i) Where lands are so mixed up that the ar.cestral
and non-ancestral portions cannot be separated they must be
regarded as non-ancestral unless it is shown which are ancestral
and which are not.
Avtar Singh v. Thakar Singh, 35 I.A 206, applied.
Land ceases to be ancestral if it comes into the hands of any
owner otherwise than by descent.
Inder Singh v. Gulzara Singh, AI.R. 1951 Punj. 345, Saif-ulRahman v. Mohammad Ali Khan, I.L.R. 9 Lah. 95 and Jagtar
Singh v. Raghbir Singh, I.L.R. 13 Lah. 165, referred to.
(ii) The application of the personal law to "the family by
the courts below was correct and paragraph 24 of Rattingan's
Digest which excludes sisters from inheritar.ce from non-ancestral property is too widely stated.
Ujagar Singh v. Mst. Jeo, [1959) Supp. 2 S.C.R. 781 and
Waryam Singh v. Smt. Sukhi, CA No. 452/61 decided on 23-4-1963
(non-reportable) referred to.
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 490
of 1962. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order
dated October 20, 1959 of the Punjab High Court in Regular
Second Appeal No. 1591 of 1959.
Kartar Singh Chawla and Harbans Singh, for the appellants.
I. M. Lal and M. R. K. Pillai, for the respondents.
March 24, 1964. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
Ritlayatvllah,J.
HIDAYATULLAH, J.-This is a defendants' appeal by
special leave against the order of the High Court of Punjab
dated October 20, 1959 dismissing summarily second appeal
filed by the appellants. The suit was filed by the respondents
for possession of a plot, a house and a Taur and half share in
certain lands as preferential heirs of one Pohla after the death
r-
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
431
1964
of Pohla's widow Punjab Kaur on February 7, 1952. The
plaintiffs are Mst. Nikko, sister of Pohla and Jarnail Singh,
son of Mst. Har Kaur who was another sister of Pohla. The
first appellant Mara is a collateral of 4th degree of Pohla and
the other two appellants are Mara's sons. The following genealogy gives the relationship of the parties: -
Mara and Other•
v.
Niikl:o OlMi Or1.
I
Sohela
I
PirBux
I
Mara
defendant No. 1
I
:MohindL Singh
defendant
No2
I
Major Singh
defendant
No. 3
Sultani
Pohla
(son)
I
Shrimati
Punjab Kaur
widow
I
Baghaila
I
Jaimal
I
Mat. Har Kaur
(daughter)
I
Jarna.il son of
Arjan Singh
Plaintiff
No.2
I
I
Sunder
died sonle88 and
wifeless
I
Mat.Nikko
alia.s Punjab Kaur
(daughter) wife of
S&nta Singh J &t,
resident of Ayali
Kalan,
Plaintiff
No. I.
The parties are Jhalli lats of village Chomon, Tehsil and
District Ludhiana. The plaintiffs claimed that the property was
non-ancestral and according to the Riwaj applicable to the·
family, sisters excluded collaterals in respect of both ancestral
and non-ancestral properties. It appears that after the death
of Panjab Kaur, Mara got one of the fields mutated in his
own name and thereafter took possession of the whole pro.
perty. He made gifts to his sons of some of the properties a.nd
that is why they were joined in the suit. Mara and his elder
son Mohinder Singh filed a joint written statement in which.
they raised many pleas the details whereof need not be given
here. They claimed that according to the custom applicable
to the family, sister and sister's sons were excluded from inheritance in respect of properties whether ancestral or nonancestral. They ,however claimed that the property was ancestral and denied the genealogy.
-•
The Subordinate Judge, Second Class, Ludhiana framed
six issues of which issues No. 2, 3 and 4 alone are important
in this appeal. Those issues are: -
"2. Whether the property is ancestral qua Pohla and
Mara?"
"3. Whether the question of the nature of the pro.
perty is material for the decision of this case?"
Hidayalollali. J,
1964
.Mara and Olher1
...
Nil:lro ond Ora.
HUlaya!u!lah, J.
432
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964]
"4. Whether the plaintiffs are preferential heirs to the
estate of Mst Panjabo widow of Pohla?"
The parties led voluminous oral evidence in the case but
the Subordinate Judge did not rely upon it We have not been
referred to any portion of this evidence in tJiis appeal. The
learned Subordinate Judge held that the suit lands were not
ancestral and further that ·no evidence was produced to prove
that the other properties were ancestral. On the third issue he
referred to question No. 52 from the Riwaj-i-am relating to
the settlements of 1882 and 1909-1910 (Exts. D-1 and D-2)
in which it is stated that among the lhalli lats of Tehsil
Ludhiana sisters or sisters' sons never succeed. He, however,
held on the authority of Ahmad v. Mohammad and others(')
that since question refers only to ancestral property and that
the nature of the property was thus material. On the fourth
issue he held on the strength of the answer to question No. 52
that sisters and their sons were excluded from ancestral property but as the answer was not applicable to 1:on-ancestral ·
property the personal law would apply unless special custom
was proved. He therefore placed the burden on the defendants
relying .upon Harnam Singh v. Mst. Gurdev Kaur, (') Mst.
Sukhwant Kaur v. S. Balwant Singh and others(') and Mst. Jeo
v. Ujagar Singh.(') As he had alre:ldy rejected the oral evidence
and there was no other proof that the property was ancestral,
he decreed the suit.
On appeal the District Judge, Ludhiana remitted three
issues to the trial Judge and they were as follows : -
"Issue No. 4: -
Whether there is any custom by which the parties
are governed according to which the plaintiffs
are entitled to succeed to the ancestral as well
as non-ancestral left by the Pohla in preference
to Mara defendant? "
"Issue No. 4A: -
Whether under the custom by which parties are
governed the defendant Mara is a preferential
heir to the plaintiffs in respect of the ancestral
as well as non-ancestral property of Pohla deceased?"
(') A.I.R. 1936 Lah. 809.
(') A.I.R. 1951 Simla 242.
(') 1957 P:L.R. 609.
(') 1953 P.L.R. 1
7 S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
433
"Issue No. 4B: -
1964
If the custom set out by the parties is not proved,
whether the plaintiffs are preferential heirs to
Mara .i.lefendant under personal law applicable
to the parties?"
Mara and Others
v.
On these issues the report of the Subordinate Judge, First
Class, Ludhiana was against the contention of the defendants.
The learned District Judge held, in Jgreement with the Subordinate Judge, that the lands in suit were not ancestral and
he held also that there was no evidence to show that among
the Jhalli Jats of Ludhiana collat~rals excluded sisters and
sisters' sons ·in respect of non-ancestral property. He referred
to Exts. 9, IO, 12 and 13 which were judgments in other cases
a> evidencing the contrary. He accordingly dismissed the appeal. The Second appeal filed thereafter was dismissed summarily by the High Court.
.
The first question to decide is whether these 13nds are
ancestral or non-ancestral. The concurrent finding of the two
courts below is that none of the properties in dispute is ancestral. The High Court prima facie saw no reason to differ
from any of the conclusions of the courts below. It is contended on the strength of a Kafiat of Thu/la Malla prepared at the
settlement of 1882 that this land came into possession of one
Sekhu who was admittedly a common ancesto1 in the famil'y
and the property, which is now in dispute, mu~t be regarded
as ancestral. It is contended that the finding is vitiated because
the two courts below did not read this Kafiat along with the
extracts from the Records of rights of the years 1882 and 1909-
. 1910 in which the names of Jaiinal and Sunder, sons of
Baghela, and of Pir Bux son of Sohila are shown ~.s persons
in enjoyment of half shares in these lands. It is argued that
the lands in suit are thus proved to be ancestral as they belonged to Sekhu the common ancestor and the Riwaj-i-am
as disclosed in question No. 52 applies to the case. It appears,
however, from the Kafiat as well as the Record of Rights that
these lands were once abandoned and when people came back
Sekhu got possession of some lands but in addition to these
Sekhu's descendants had acquired the share of one Dalpat in
the Thu/la and subsequently the entire estate of another
holder, namely, Maidas was purchased by Jaiinal, Sunder and
Sohila. This shows that the lands in dispute are not entirely
ancestral but are made up of lands which may be described as
ancestral and non-ancestral.
Now, it has been ruled in the Punjab consistently that
where lands are so mixed up that the ancestral and nonancestral, portions cannot he separated they must be regarded
~il ikko and Ors.
IJidayatulla.k, J.
1964
J[ara and OtMrs
v.
Nikko and Ors.
Hidayatullah, J.
434
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1964)
as non-ancestral, unless it is shown which are ancestral and
which are not. This was laid down by the Privy Council in
Avtar Singh v, Thakar Singh('). It was held by Mr. Justice
Kapur (as he then was) in Indar Singh v. Gulzara Singh and
others(') basing himself upon Saif-ul-Rahman v. Mohammand
Ali Khan(') and Jagtar Singh v. Raghbir Singh(') that land
ceases to be ancestral if it comes into the hands of an owner
otherwise than by descent. Once these conclusions are reached,
it is quite obvious that the decision of the District Judge not
to apply the answer to question No. 52 to non-ancestral land
was right. It may be mentioned that the answers to questions
refer to ancestral property only and this is now firmly established. In fact, it was not denied at the hearing.
It is, however, contended that there are decisions to show
that the right of the collaterals was recognised in respect of
even non-ancestral land to the exclusion of sisters and their
sons. No ruling from the Law Reports has been brought to
our notice. Some cases from the Ambala and Amritsar Districts are cited but those obviously cannot be any authority,
because, as is well-known, custom in the Punjab changes from
district to district, tehsil to tehsil and pargana to pargana. It
has been ruled in this Court that paragraph 24 of Rattingan's
Digest which excludes sisters from inheritance from non-ancestral property is too widely stated. (See Ujagar Singh v. Mst.
Jeo(') and (Waryam Singh and Others v. Smt. Sykhi and another) (Civil Appeal No. 452 of 1961 decided on April 23, 1963).
The learned District Judge cited some instances in which the
sisters and sisters' sons were allowed to succeed in preference
to collaterals. One of the documents filed by the defendants
in the suit (Ext. D-6) also supports the contention of the respondents. In this view of the matter it cannot be said that the
Jw
application of the personal law to the family by the courts
below was erroneous. It is contended lastly that the rulings
only show that collaterals of 5th degree are excluded and
there is no case showing that a collateral of 4th degree was
excluded. If personal Jaw applies, as it does, a collateral of
the 4th degree is also excluded.
In our judgment this appeal must fail and is accordingly
dismissed with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
(') 35 I.A. 206.
(') AI.R. 1951 Pb. 345.
(') I.L.R 9 Lah. 95.
(') I.L.R. 13 Lah. 165.
(') (1959 Supp. 2 S.C.R. 781.