A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court in Jai Kaur & Others v. Sher Singh & Others, [1960] 3 SCR 975, dealt with a nuanced issue of Hindu Customary Law applicable to Jats of the Grewal gotra in Ludhiana, Punjab. The Court clarified the status of daughters under customary law in matters of succession to non-ancestral property. It examined the interplay between Rattigan’s Digest of Customary Law and the Riwaj-i-am of 1882 to determine whether daughters have a preferential claim over collaterals in self-acquired properties. The Court held that in the absence of a clear custom to the contrary, daughters would be preferred heirs to non-ancestral property. However, it also emphasized that a Hindu widow cannot accelerate the reversion of an estate to her daughters by partially surrendering only a portion of the estate. Thus, the gift of self-acquired property by the widow to her daughters was held invalid beyond her lifetime. The Court reaffirmed established precedents on doctrine of surrender under Hindu law, especially that surrender must involve full effacement in favour of the reversioners. It dismissed the appeal, thereby reinforcing the jurisprudence concerning customary succession and partial surrender.

Keywords: Hindu Customary Law, Grewal Jats, Non-ancestral Property, Doctrine of Surrender, Riwaj-i-am, Preferential Heir

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Jai Kaur & Others v. Sher Singh & Others

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 108 of 1956

iii) Judgement Date: 6th May 1960

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justices P.B. Gajendragadkar, K.N. Wanchoo, and K.C. Das Gupta

vi) Author: Justice K.C. Das Gupta

vii) Citation: [1960] 3 SCR 975

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Hindu Law – Customary Law of Succession

• Doctrine of Surrender

• Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956

ix) Judgments Overruled by the Case:

• Mohinder Singh v. Kher Singh, AIR 1949 East Punjab 328 – Disapproved

• Jattan v. Jiwan Singh, AIR 1933 Lah 553 – Implicitly overruled

x) Case is Related to: Hindu Law, Customary Succession, Women’s Property Rights

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The present case arises out of a deep-rooted conflict within customary Hindu law concerning the succession rights of daughters in non-ancestral property. The dispute originates from the gift executed by a widow, Jai Kaur, in favour of her two daughters, over land inherited from her deceased husband, Dev Singh. The contesting respondents, Sher Singh and Labh Singh, claimed reversionary rights as male collaterals under customary succession rules applicable to Grewal Jats in Ludhiana. The case traversed multiple judicial levels and revolved around whether a daughter, under customary law, is a preferential heir over collaterals in non-ancestral property. It also brought into question the nature and scope of surrender in Hindu law and its consequences on succession. The decision marks a turning point in recognizing women’s preferential rights under customary norms and outlines the rigid requirements for lawful surrender by widows.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The suit originated when Sher Singh and Labh Singh, respondents and collaterals of the deceased, sought a declaration that the gift deed executed by Jai Kaur in favour of her daughters was void against their reversionary interests. The land in question, measuring 8 bighas and 1 biswa, was inherited by Jai Kaur from her husband, Dev Singh. The plaintiffs alleged that the land was ancestral in nature and, by custom, collaterals alone succeeded such property in the absence of sons. They further contended that even if the land was not ancestral, under customary law governing Grewal Jats, daughters were still excluded. The trial court partly agreed, holding 2B-2B-14B to be ancestral and rest non-ancestral, thus declaring the gift invalid only to the extent of the ancestral part. The District Judge upheld this finding. However, the High Court overturned it, holding that even in non-ancestral property, collaterals excluded daughters. The matter came before the Supreme Court on special leave, raising fundamental questions of customary succession and the scope of the surrender doctrine.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether under the customary law prevailing among Grewal Jats in Ludhiana, daughters are preferred heirs over collaterals in non-ancestral property?

ii) Whether the gift made by a widow of her husband’s non-ancestral property to her daughters amounts to lawful surrender so as to accelerate succession?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that under the customary law as codified in Rattigan’s Digest of Customary Law, daughters are preferential heirs to non-ancestral property over collaterals. They pointed to Paragraph 23 of the Digest, which supports such preference.

They argued that the Riwaj-i-am entries, relied upon by the High Court, refer only to ancestral property, and hence cannot override the general law supporting daughters’ claims in self-acquired property. In support, they cited the Full Bench ruling in Mt. Hurmate v. Hoshiaru, AIR 1944 Lah 21, where it was held that the Riwaj-i-am questions such as No. 43 concern only ancestral properties[1].

The counsel also contended that the gift by the widow Jai Kaur amounted to a surrender of her life estate, thereby legally transferring succession to the daughters as rightful reversioners. They emphasized that as per Rangaswami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden, (1918) 46 IA 72, such surrender is valid when it accelerates the succession in favour of legitimate heirs[2].

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that the customary law among Grewal Jats categorically excludes daughters from inheritance, even in non-ancestral property. They relied on the Riwaj-i-am of 1882, Question 43, which stated, “In our tribe, the daughter does not succeed under any circumstances”[3].

They further argued that the gift made by Jai Kaur was not a full surrender but a partial disposition, since she retained part of the property and excluded other reversioners. Citing Phool Kaur v. Prem Kaur, [1952] SCR 793, they claimed such partial surrender is invalid and cannot accelerate succession[4].

They also invoked Mt. Subhani v. Nawab, AIR 1941 PC 21, to highlight the evidentiary relevance of Riwaj-i-am, emphasizing that unless rebutted, it should be presumed correct under Section 35 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872[5].

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 35, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Relevance and admissibility of entries in Riwaj-i-am
ii) Doctrine of Surrender – As explained in Rangaswami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden, (1918) 46 IA 72
iii) Section 14, Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – Scope of widow’s right converted to absolute estate
iv) Paragraph 23, Rattigan’s Digest of Customary Law – Daughters’ preferential rights in non-ancestral property

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i) The Supreme Court held that daughters are preferential heirs to non-ancestral property under the general customary law applicable to Grewal Jats, as recorded in Rattigan’s Digest. The Court ruled that Riwaj-i-am, unless clearly referring to non-ancestral property, cannot override this presumption[6].

ii) The Court declared that partial surrender by a widow, wherein she transfers only part of the estate while retaining control or distributing among non-reversioners, is invalid. It emphasized the requirement of total effacement, as discussed in Phool Kaur v. Prem Kaur, [1952] SCR 793[7].

b. OBITER DICTA

i) The Court noted that Riwaj-i-am should be treated with caution, especially where female rights are concerned, as they often lacked representation in customary compilations.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Manuals of Customary Law must be interpreted strictly, referring to ancestral property only, unless expressly indicated otherwise.

• Surrender of estate must be complete and unconditional to accelerate reversion.

• Partial surrenders are invalid and confer no accelerated title.

• Courts must exercise care in applying customary exclusions to female heirs, as such customs must be strictly proved.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

This judgment marked a landmark affirmation of daughters’ rights in non-ancestral properties under customary law, particularly in rural Punjab. By clarifying that the Riwaj-i-am did not apply to self-acquired properties unless clearly stated, the Court effectively prevented the indiscriminate exclusion of daughters based on vague or incomplete customs. Simultaneously, it reinforced the sanctity of the doctrine of surrender by insisting on total effacement, thereby preserving legal consistency. Although the appellants failed due to the technical requirements of surrender, the judgment significantly advanced the jurisprudence surrounding customary succession and women’s rights. It strikes a balance between tradition and progression, marking a judicial effort to harmonize customary law with the broader objectives of equality.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

[1] Mt. Hurmate v. Hoshiaru, AIR 1944 Lah 21
[2] Rangaswami Gounden v. Nachiappa Gounden, (1918) 46 IA 72
[3] Mt. Subhani v. Nawab, AIR 1941 PC 21
[4] Phool Kaur v. Prem Kaur, [1952] SCR 793
[5] Jattan v. Jiwan Singh, AIR 1933 Lah 553
[6] Mohinder Singh v. Kher Singh, AIR 1949 East Punjab 328
[7] Budhi Prakash v. Chandra Bhan, AIR 1918 Lah 225

b. Important Statutes Referred

• Hindu Succession Act, 1956, Section 14

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 35

• Rattigan’s Digest of Customary Law, Paragraph 23

• Riwaj-i-am, 1882, Question 43