# SALIG RAM v. MUNSHI RAM AND ANOTHER

- **Citation:** [1962] 1 S.C.R. 470
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1962
- **Case number:** CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTTON: Civil Appeal No. 461 of 1957
- **Bench:** P. B. Gajendragadkar ·, K. N. Wanchoo
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/salig-ram-v-munshi-ram-and-another-2138
- **Pages:** 8

## Headnote

Punjab Customary Law-Custonis in Auiritsar district-Adopted son's right to inheritance in his natural Ja111ily-Elrahmin and
Khatri community-Punjab Laws Act, I872 (Punj. 4 of r872), s. 5.
M, a Hindu belonging to the Brahmin community in the
Amritsar District of Punjab, instituted a suit for the possession
of a half share in the property left by his natural paternal grandfather. His father had pre-deceased him, but another son of his
grandfather was alive. He had been adopted away in a different
family but he claimed that according to th" custom of his community in the district he was entitled to get his share in the
estate of his natural grandfather. He based his claim on the
principlcDf representation that he stepped into the shoes of his
natural father.
'
Held, that under s. 5 of the P;,njab Laws Act, 1872, the law
applicable to Hindus in Punjab in respect of questions regarding
succession and other matters referred to in that section, is Hindu
law in the first instance, but where a custom different from
Hindu law is proved then the rights of the parties would be
governed by that custom; and v.·hosoever asserts a custom at
variance with Hindu law has to prove it, though the quantum
of proof required in support of the custom which is general and
well recognised may be small while in other cases of what are
called special customs the quantum may be larger.
Held, further, that in the Amritsar district of Punjab
ainongst Brahmins and Khatris, a son given away in adoption
can succeed to the property of his natural father if there is
no other son of the natural father, but if there is another son he
cannot succeed.
Held, also, that in the present case neither under Hindu
law nor under the customary law of Punjab could M succeed to
the property of his natural grandfather.
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTTON:
Civil Appeal No.
461 of 1957.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated July 5, 1954, of the Punjab High Court in
L. P. A. No. 29 of 1953.
N. S. Bindra and Sardar Singh, for the appellant.
P. D. Ahuja and H.P. Wanchoo, for respondent
No. I.
•
•
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
471
1961. March 21. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
WANCHOO, ,J.-This is an appeal by special leave
from the judgment of the Punjab High Court and
arises out of a suit for possession of land brought by ·
Munshi Ram, respondent.
The following pedigreetable will be useful in understanding the claim put
forward by the respondent:-
T
Karori
I
Go bind
I
Santu.
I
Laghi
I
Ata
I
Heman
I
I
Maghi
(issueless)
I
Jai Dayal
I
Nanak Chand
I
Munshi Ram
---- -- ___ I_ ----1
(adopted son)
I
plain tiff Hans Raj
I
Munshi Ram
Salig Ram
(Defdt.)
(adopted by Ata)
The claim of Munshi Ram was with respect to the
property left by Nanak Chand who is his natural
grandfather and also Santu. There is no dispute now
about the property of Santu and we are concerned in
this appeal only with the property of Nanak Chand.
Nanak Chand died in 1939.
Munshi Ram's natural
father Hans Raj had pre-deceased Nanak Chand.
Munshi Ram himself was adopted by Ata in 1918
before the death of his natural father Hans Raj which
took place in 1920. It will be clear from these dates
therefore that Hans Raj never succeeded to the property of his father Nanak Chand and Munshi Ram
had been adopted by Ata even .before Hans Raj's
death. The case of Munshi Ram was that he was
entitled to one-half share of the property left by Nanak
Chand as his heir according to Zamindara custom.
The parties, it may be mentioned, are Brahmins and
Munshi Ram claimed joint possession of the half
share of the property left by Nanak Chand on his
Salig Ram
v.
Munshi Ram
U"anchoo ].
Salig Rain
v.
Munshi Ram
ivanchoo ].
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
death. The suit was resisted by Sa!ig Ram (defendant.
appellant) who is the other son of Nanak Chand. His
case was that Munshi Ram was not entitled either
according to personal law or the riwaj-i-am of Amritsar
district to any share in the property left by Nanak
Chand. T

## Text

z961
March 2I.
470
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
SALIG RAM
v.
MUNSHI RAM AND ANOTHER
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · and K. N. WANCHOO, JJ.)
Punjab Customary Law-Custonis in Auiritsar district-Adopted son's right to inheritance in his natural Ja111ily-Elrahmin and
Khatri community-Punjab Laws Act, I872 (Punj. 4 of r872), s. 5.
M, a Hindu belonging to the Brahmin community in the
Amritsar District of Punjab, instituted a suit for the possession
of a half share in the property left by his natural paternal grandfather. His father had pre-deceased him, but another son of his
grandfather was alive. He had been adopted away in a different
family but he claimed that according to th" custom of his community in the district he was entitled to get his share in the
estate of his natural grandfather. He based his claim on the
principlcDf representation that he stepped into the shoes of his
natural father.
'
Held, that under s. 5 of the P;,njab Laws Act, 1872, the law
applicable to Hindus in Punjab in respect of questions regarding
succession and other matters referred to in that section, is Hindu
law in the first instance, but where a custom different from
Hindu law is proved then the rights of the parties would be
governed by that custom; and v.·hosoever asserts a custom at
variance with Hindu law has to prove it, though the quantum
of proof required in support of the custom which is general and
well recognised may be small while in other cases of what are
called special customs the quantum may be larger.
Held, further, that in the Amritsar district of Punjab
ainongst Brahmins and Khatris, a son given away in adoption
can succeed to the property of his natural father if there is
no other son of the natural father, but if there is another son he
cannot succeed.
Held, also, that in the present case neither under Hindu
law nor under the customary law of Punjab could M succeed to
the property of his natural grandfather.
CIVIL APPELLATE JuRISDICTTON:
Civil Appeal No.
461 of 1957.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated July 5, 1954, of the Punjab High Court in
L. P. A. No. 29 of 1953.
N. S. Bindra and Sardar Singh, for the appellant.
P. D. Ahuja and H.P. Wanchoo, for respondent
No. I.
•
•
l S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
471
1961. March 21. The Judgment of the Court was
delivered by
WANCHOO, ,J.-This is an appeal by special leave
from the judgment of the Punjab High Court and
arises out of a suit for possession of land brought by ·
Munshi Ram, respondent.
The following pedigreetable will be useful in understanding the claim put
forward by the respondent:-
T
Karori
I
Go bind
I
Santu.
I
Laghi
I
Ata
I
Heman
I
I
Maghi
(issueless)
I
Jai Dayal
I
Nanak Chand
I
Munshi Ram
---- -- ___ I_ ----1
(adopted son)
I
plain tiff Hans Raj
I
Munshi Ram
Salig Ram
(Defdt.)
(adopted by Ata)
The claim of Munshi Ram was with respect to the
property left by Nanak Chand who is his natural
grandfather and also Santu. There is no dispute now
about the property of Santu and we are concerned in
this appeal only with the property of Nanak Chand.
Nanak Chand died in 1939.
Munshi Ram's natural
father Hans Raj had pre-deceased Nanak Chand.
Munshi Ram himself was adopted by Ata in 1918
before the death of his natural father Hans Raj which
took place in 1920. It will be clear from these dates
therefore that Hans Raj never succeeded to the property of his father Nanak Chand and Munshi Ram
had been adopted by Ata even .before Hans Raj's
death. The case of Munshi Ram was that he was
entitled to one-half share of the property left by Nanak
Chand as his heir according to Zamindara custom.
The parties, it may be mentioned, are Brahmins and
Munshi Ram claimed joint possession of the half
share of the property left by Nanak Chand on his
Salig Ram
v.
Munshi Ram
U"anchoo ].
Salig Rain
v.
Munshi Ram
ivanchoo ].
472
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
death. The suit was resisted by Sa!ig Ram (defendant.
appellant) who is the other son of Nanak Chand. His
case was that Munshi Ram was not entitled either
according to personal law or the riwaj-i-am of Amritsar
district to any share in the property left by Nanak
Chand. The trial court held that Munshi Ram was
entitled to succeed to the property left by Nanak
Chand along with Salig Ram and decreed the suit
accordingly. Salig Ram went in appeal to the District Judge but failed. He then went in second appeal
to the High Court but the second appeal was also
dismissed. The High Court having refused to grant a
certificate the appellant applied to this Court for
special leave which was granted; and that is how the
matter has come up before us.
In questions regarding suecession and certain other
matters, the law in the Punjab is contained in s. 5 of
the Punjab Laws Act, No. IV of 1872. Clause (b) of
that section provides that the rule of decision in such
matters shall be the Hindu law where the parties are
Hindus, except in so far as such law has been altered or
abolished by legislative enactment, or is opposed to the
provisions of this Act or has been modified by any such
custom as is referred to in cl. (a) thereof. Clause (a)
provides that any custom applicable to the parties
concerned, which is not contrary to justice, equity or
good conscience, and has not been by this or any
other enactment altered or abolished and has not been
declared to be void by any •competent authority
shall be applied in such matters.
The position
therefore that emerges is, where the parties are Hindus,
the Hindu law would apply in the first instance and
whosoever asserts a custom at variance with the Hindu
law shall have to prove it, though the quantum of
proof required in support of the custom which is general and well recognised may be small while in other
cases of what are called special customs the quantum
may be larger. As was pointed out by Robertson, J.,
as far back as 1906 in Daya Ram v. Sahel Singh and
others('), "in all cases under s. 5 of the Punjab Laws
Act, it lies upon the person asserting that he is ruled
(r) rgo6 P.R. No. tro.
•
•
•
•
r
.•
I S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
473
in regard to a particular matter by custom, to prove
that he is so governed, and not by personal law, and
further to prove what the particular custom is. There
is no presumption created by the clause in favour of
custom; on the contrary it is only when the custom is
established that it is to be the rule of decision." These
observations were approved by the Privy Council in
Abdul Hussein Khan v. Bibi Sona Dero and another (1).
The same ·view has been taken by this Court in Ujagar
Singh v. Mst. Jeo (').
We have therefore in the first instance to apply
Hindu law to the parties to this suit, and it is only
when a custom different from Hindu law is proved
that rights of the parties would be governed by that
custom. Munshi Ram's case was that he was adopted
by Ata according to custom (i.e., in accordance with
the mode prevalent in the community for purposes of
adoption) during the lifetime of Hans Raj. Thus
Munshi Ram having been adopted by Ata would have
no right left in the family of his natural father Hans
Raj, unless the adoption was in the dvyamushyayana
form. It was however never the case of Munshi Ram
that the adoption was in dvyamushyayana form and
so far as Hindu law is concerned, if it applies to this
case Munshi Ram would not be entitled after the
adoption to succeed to the property left by Nanak
Chand.
But Munshi Ram's case was that according to
Zamindara custom he was entitled to succeed to half
of the properties left by Nanak Chand. The question
therefore arises: what the Zamindara custom is in the
present case.
In the plaint the custom was not
actually pleaded, though strictly speaking this should
have been done. However, the custom that is relied
upon is to be found in para. 48 of the Digest of Customary Law in the Punjab by Rattigan at p. 572, 13th
Edition. This paragraph appears in section V dealing
with "Effect of Adoption on Succession" and is in the
following terms:-
" An heir appointed in the manner above described
ordinarily does not thereby lose his right to succeed
(1) (1917) L.R. 45 I.A. 10, 13.
(2) [1959] Supp. 2 S.C.R. 781.
60
Salig Ram
v.
l11unshi Ram
Wanchoo ].
•
Salig Ratn
v.
li1unshi Ra1n
Wanchoo ].
474
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
to property in his natural family, as against collaterals, but does not succeed in the presence of his
natural brothers."
It is not disputed before us that para. 48 applies in
the case of adoption also; but what is contended on
behalf of the appellant is that para. 48 only mentions
a custom prevalent throughout the Punjab while the
riwaj-i-am of Amritsar district from which area the
parties come also records a custom confined to that
area which really governs the parties. It appears that
in 1865 the riwaj-i-am of Amritsar district stated that
"an adopted son will not be a co-sharer amongst his
brothers, in the property left by his natural father",
i.e., a son given away in adoption will not inherit in
the natural father's family.
We may in this connection refer to J ai Kaur and others v. Sher Singh and
others (' ), where this Court held that-
" there is therefore an initial presumption of
correctness as regards the entries in the Riwaj-i-am
and when the custom as recorded in the Riwaj-i-am
is in conflict with the general custom as recorded in
Rattigan's Digest or ascertained otherwise, the
entries in the Riwaj-i-am should ordinarily prevail
except that as was pointed out by the Judicial
Committee of the Privy Council in a recent decision
in Mt. Subhani v. Nawab ('),that where, as in the
present case, the Riwaj-i-am affects adversely the
rights of females who had no opportunity whatever
of appearing before the revenue authorities, the
presumption would be weak, and pnly a few instances would suffice to rebut it."
As females are not concerned in this case, the entries
in the riwaj-i-am of Amritsar district in 1865, if they
conflict with para. 48 of Rattigan's Digest, should
prevail. On that view Munshi Ram would have no right
to succeed in the family of his natural father after
he was adopted by Ata.
The High Court, however,
pointed out that there were decisions of courts which
did not accept the riwaj-i-am of Amritsar district of
1865 as laying down the correct custom and therefore
para. 48 of the Digest by Rattigan would still prevail.
(1) A.I.R. 1960 S.C. 1118.
(2) A.I.R. 1941 P.C. 2r.
4
.
,
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
475
In this connection the High Court relied on Majja
Singh and others v. Ram Singh ('). That was however
a case of Jats and not of Brahmins and the person
who was adopted in that case was an only son. That
case would not therefore necessarily override the
custom so far as it a pp lies to Brahmins. In any case
the position is made clear by the Manual of Customary
Law prepared in 1911-12 by Mr. Craik.
The custom
recorded in that compilation is that with the exception of Brahmins and Khatris, an adopted son does
not retain his right to inherit from his natural father,
even if the latter dies without leaving any other
son. The High Court however pointed out that the
Brahmins and khatris did not accept this custom; but
it failed to notice a further paragraph in answer to
that very question where it was pointed out that
among Brahmins and Khatris the same custom prevailed except that where there was no other son, the
son who was adopted in another family would succeed
to the property of his natural father. In 1940 the
customary law of Amritsar district was again compiled and the custom recorded is that an adopted son
loses his right to inherit from his natural father but if
the latter dies without other sons the adopted son
cannot inherit as a son but may inherit collaterally
as a successor of his adoptive father.
The position as it emerges from a comparison of the
entries in the riwaj-i-am of 1865, 1911-12 and 1940 is
somewhat confused and the High Court therefore
thought that the custom recorded in para. 48 should
be adhered to as Brahmins and Khatris did not accept
the extreme position that a son given away in adoption was excluded altogether from succeeding in his
natural father's family as recorded in 1911-12. This
conclusion seems to be fortified by the statements of
Brahmins and Khatris in 1911-12 that a son given
away in adoption succeeded in the family of his
natural father if he had no brothers-though the High
Court did not notice this part of the answer in the
riwaj-i-am of 1911-12. The conclusion therefore at
which we arrive is that amongst Brahmins and
(1) 1879 P.R. No, 43Salig Ram
v.
Munshi Ra1n
Wanchoo ].
196z
Salig Ram
v.
Munshi Ram
Wanchoo ].
476
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1962]
Khatris of Amritsar distict, a son given away in adop.
tion can succeed to the property of his natural father
only if there is no other son of the natural father; if
there is another son he cannot succeed.
Now let us see how this proposition works out in
the present case. In this case Munshi Ram was claim.
ing to succeed not to the property of Hans Raj, his
natural father, but to the property of Nanak Chand
his natural grandfather. If the case was for succes.
sion to the property of the natural father, namely,
Hans Raj, the custom might have favoured Munshi
Ram, for Hans Raj had no other son and Munshi
Ram would thus have succeeded to the property of
Hans Raj. But Hans Raj, having died in the lifetime
of his father (Nanak Chand), never succeeded to the
property of his father. The High Court, however,
thought that on the principle of representation Mun.
shi Ram stepped into the shoes of Hans Raj and
therefore was entitled to succeed to the estate left by
Nanak Chand as his father would have succeeded if
he had been alive at the time of the death of Nanak
Chand. But if Munshi Ram is to succeed by the ap.
plication of the principle of representation it would
follow that Munshi Ram would really be deemed to
be Hans Raj at the time of the death of Nanak Chand.
In that case the position would be that Nanak Chand
would have died leaving two sons, namely, Salig Ram
and Munshi Ram in the guise of Hans Raj. But
Munshi Ram having been adopted away and there
being another son of Nanak Chand, even the custom
recorded in para. 48 would exclude Munshi Ram be.
cause then there would be a brother of Munshi Ram
alive in the family of Nanak Chand and this brother
would succeed in exclusion of Munshi Ram who would
be representing his father. The argument on behalf
of Munshi Ram is that though for the purpose of representation Munshi Ram would be treated as if he
stood in the shoes of his father, the representation
could not go further and it could not be held that
there were two sons of Nanak Chand living at tlie
time of his death, one of whom in the guise of Munshi
Ram was adopted away.
We cannot accept this
4
•
•
.....
•
1 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS
477
argument; and if Munshi Ram is to succeed on the
principle of representation that principle must be fully
worked out and he must for all intents and purposes be
deemed to be Hans Raj. As the person who is deemed
to be Hans Raj was adopted away and has a brother
in the shape of Salig Ram he would not succeed even
under the custom recorded in para. 48 of Rattigan's
Digest. The position therefore is that neither under
Hindu law nor under the custom recorded in para. 48
can Munshi Ram succeed to the property of Nanak
Chand. We therefore allow the appeal and set aside
the decree of the courts below a.nd dismiss the suit of
the plaintiff-respondent so far as the property of
Nanak Chand is concerned. In the circumstances we
also order the parties to bear their own costs throughout as the High Court did.
Appeal allowed.
LAKSHMAN SINGH KOTHARI
v.
SMT. RUP KANWAR
(K. SUBBA RAO and RAGHUBAR DAYAL, JJ.)
Hindu law-Adoption-Validity-Essential requirementsCeremony of giving and taking-Delegation of authority.
In order that an adoption may be valid under the Hindu
):..aw there must be a formal ceremony of giving and taking.
This is true of the regenerate castes as wf!Jl as of the Sudras.
Although no particular form is prescribed for the ceremony, the
law requires that the natural parent shall hand over the adoptive boy and the adoptive parent must receive him, the nature
of the ceremony varying according to the circumstances. After
exercising their volition to give and take the boy in adoption,
the parents may, both or either of them, delegate the physical
act of handing over or receiving to a third party.
Consequently, in a case where the natural father merely
sent the boy in another's company to the house of adoptive
father who received him but there was no delegation of the
power to give in adoption or the ceremony of giving and taking,
Salig Ram
v.
1\1 unshi Rani
Wanchoo ].
l\1arch 22.