Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a dispute over succession to property owned by late Ranjit Singh between his widow Mst. Kartar Kaur and his son Ajmer Singh. Ajmer Singh filed a suit seeking declaration that he was the exclusive owner and that mutation entries in the widow's name were incorrect, along with decree for possession. He claimed that under prevalent custom, a son alone was entitled to succeed to the exclusion of a widow. The widow contested, asserting that custom also allowed her to inherit alongside the son, and alternatively that she had acquired ownership by adverse possession. The trial court dismissed the suit, answering issues on limitation, adverse possession, and estoppel against the plaintiff, though it held him to be the sole owner. On appeal, the Additional District Judge decreed the suit in favour of the son, disbelieving the widow's adverse possession claim and holding that under general custom a widow could not inherit in the presence of a son. The High Court dismissed the widow's second appeal. In the Supreme Court, the main question was whether custom permitted the widow to succeed along with the son. The widow had led oral and documentary evidence, including two mutation entries showing instances where a widow and son inherited property in equal shares, though from different villages. The trial court had rejected this evidence on the ground that it did not appertain to the village where the parties resided. The Supreme Court disagreed, observing that a custom need not be proved with reference to a village; it really appertains to a community or tribe. The Court also noted that although the Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937 did not apply to PEPSU where the land was situated, its underlying principle should be borne in mind while deciding a widow's claim. Accordingly, the Court held that the widow's case of special custom allowing inheritance to a widow along with the son did not merit outright rejection. It then considered the total Class-I heirs of Ranjit Singh, which included the appellant widow, the respondent son, another wife Dalip Kaur, a daughter through the appellant, and two sons through Dalip Kaur, making six heirs. Accepting the respondent's counter affidavit that the widow would be entitled to 1/6th share, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, declared the appellant entitled to 1/6th share, and directed partition by metes and bounds under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC. The Collector was to divide the property within three months, after which the appellant was to hand over possession of the remaining part to the respondent within three months; an undertaking was to be filed within one month. Costs were left to be borne by the parties. The Court also affirmed the lower courts' findings that the suit was within limitation and that no adverse possession was established, as mere possession is insufficient without adverseness.
Headnote
A) Customary Succession - Custom Governing Inheritance - Widow's Right to Inherit Alongside Son - Hindu Women's Right to Property Act, 1937; Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - The dispute concerned whether a widow could succeed to property along with a son under custom. Evidence of mutations granting widow and son equal shares was rejected by trial court as not pertaining to the parties' village; Supreme Court held custom appertains to community or tribe, not village, and underlying principle of 1937 Act must guide even where Act not applicable, ultimately holding widow entitled to 1/6th share among six Class-I heirs (Paras 5-10). B) Property Law - Adverse Possession - Prescriptive Title Requires Adverse Possession, Not Mere Possession - No specific statute cited (common law principle) - Appellant claimed ownership by adverse possession; trial and appellate courts disbelieved; Supreme Court affirmed that no materials showed possession was adverse; mere possession insufficient to mature into title (Paras 2-4). C) Civil Procedure - Execution and Partition - Division of Property by Metes and Bounds - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 20 Rule 18 - Upon declaring appellant entitled to 1/6th share, Supreme Court directed the Collector to divide suit property by metes and bounds within three months and appellant to hand over remaining possession to respondent within three months thereafter (Para 10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant widow was entitled to inherit the suit property along with the son under prevalent custom; whether her possession was adverse and matured into title; whether she was entitled to 1/6th share considering all Class-I heirs.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; impugned judgments modified; appellant declared entitled to 1/6th share in suit property; respondent's suit decreed accordingly; Collector directed to divide property by metes and bounds under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC within 3 months; appellant to hand over remaining possession to respondent within 3 months thereafter; appellant to file undertaking in Supreme Court within 1 month; parties to bear own costs throughout.
Law Points
- custom appertains to community or tribe
- not village
- underlying principle of Hindu Women's Right to Property Act
- 1937 applies to areas where the Act not applicable
- mere possession is not adverse possession
- widow is one of six Class-I heirs entitled to 1/6th share
- property partition by metes and bounds under Order 20 Rule 18 CPC
