A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court of India in Maktul v. Mst. Manbhari & Ors., addressed a significant question under the customary law of Punjab regarding the nature of property inherited by a Hindu male from his maternal grandfather. The Court decisively held that such property is not ancestral in nature vis-à-vis his sons. The judgment clarified the conflicting positions previously held by the Punjab High Court and laid down that the principle of stare decisis does not preclude the Supreme Court from correcting earlier erroneous decisions where no contractual obligations or settled titles are disturbed. The Court also placed heavy reliance on authoritative pronouncements by the Privy Council, especially Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahay, and rejected earlier precedents such as Lehna v. Musammat Thakri and Musammat Attar Kaur v. Nikkoo. The decision ensures greater security for titles derived from such property and curbs speculative claims by descendants based on misconceived rights under customary law.

Keywords: Customary Law, Ancestral Property, Hindu Law, Punjab Customary Law, Stare Decisis, Privy Council, Maternal Grandfather, Succession.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title:
Maktul v. Mst. Manbhari & Others

ii) Case Number:
Civil Appeal No. 150 of 1955

iii) Judgement Date:
23rd May 1958

iv) Court:
Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum:
Gajendragadkar J., A.K. Sarkar J., Subba Rao J.

vi) Author:
Justice Gajendragadkar

vii) Citation:
(1959) SCR 1099

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

• Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920, Article 2

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any):

• Lehna v. Musammat Thakri, (1895) 30 PR 124

• Musammat Attar Kaur v. Nikkoo, (1924) ILR 5 Lah 356

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects:
Hindu Law, Customary Law, Property Law, Inheritance Law, Civil Procedure, Legal Doctrines

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment addressed a critical issue under Hindu Law as modified by customary practices prevailing in Punjab. The dispute revolved around whether property inherited by a Hindu male from his maternal grandfather constitutes ancestral property for his descendants. The issue had long been clouded by conflicting precedents within Punjab’s legal framework. Earlier judgments by Full Benches of the Punjab High Court had inconsistently held such property to be ancestral. However, subsequent pronouncements by the Privy Council brought clarity, prompting the Supreme Court to reconsider and definitively settle the matter.

The Supreme Court had to resolve whether it should follow the earlier decisions under the doctrine of stare decisis, or adopt a more correct interpretation in line with established Hindu Law principles and authoritative Privy Council rulings.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Sarup, Respondent 10, inherited properties from his maternal grandfather, Moti, after the demise of his mother, Musammat Rajo. Subsequently, Sarup mortgaged the inherited property to Shibba, the ancestor of Respondents 1 to 9, for Rs. 5,000 in 1927 and later sold the equity of redemption for Rs. 11,000 in 1929. Maktul, son of Sarup and the appellant, filed Suit No. 145 of 1946 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Panipat, challenging both the mortgage and sale. He contended that the property was ancestral, governed by the customary law of Punjab, and that the alienations lacked legal necessity and consideration, rendering them void against his reversionary rights.

The trial court partly accepted the appellant’s claim, holding the property to be ancestral but dismissed his challenge to the mortgage as he was unborn at the time. The District Judge on appeal remanded the matter for substitution of legal representatives of a deceased defendant. Eventually, the trial court reaffirmed its original decision, which was then overturned by the Punjab High Court. The High Court ruled that property inherited from the maternal grandfather was not ancestral, dismissing Maktul’s suit.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether property inherited by a Hindu male from his maternal grandfather is ancestral property under Punjab’s customary law.

ii) Whether the appellant, being a son of Sarup, could challenge alienations executed by his father on the ground of ancestral property rights.

iii) Whether the doctrine of stare decisis barred the reconsideration of earlier Full Bench decisions by the Punjab High Court.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that under Punjab’s customary law, property inherited from a maternal grandfather is ancestral. Therefore, the appellant, being a son, acquired rights by birth in the property, entitling him to challenge the alienations executed by his father without legal necessity or consideration.

The appellant placed reliance on the Full Bench decision in Lehna v. Musammat Thakri, (1895) 30 PR 124, where it was held that property descending through a daughter retained its ancestral character when inherited by her sons. The appellant argued that even though the property passed through a female, it remained ancestral as it originated from the family lineage and should be governed by customary law rather than strict Hindu law interpretations.

They further argued that the principle of stare decisis applied as these precedents had stood for decades, shaping community dealings and property titles in Punjab.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that the property inherited from a maternal grandfather is not ancestral under either Hindu law or Punjab’s customary law. They relied heavily on authoritative pronouncements of the Privy Council, particularly Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahay [(1937) 64 IA 250], which conclusively held that property descending through maternal lineage is not ancestral for the purposes of joint family property rights.

They argued that earlier decisions like Lehna and Attar Kaur were erroneously decided and lacked evidentiary backing regarding prevailing customs. Respondents submitted that the Punjab High Court’s subsequent Full Bench ruling in Narotam Chand v. Mst. Durga Devi (ILR [1950] Punj 1) correctly interpreted the law, aligning with both established Hindu law and authoritative Privy Council rulings.

Furthermore, respondents contended that the doctrine of stare decisis should not protect decisions found to be manifestly erroneous where no vested rights or contractual obligations would be disturbed by correction.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 110 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908:
Permits appeals to the Supreme Court on questions of law of general importance.

ii) Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920, Article 2:
Governs limitation periods for suits relating to alienation of ancestral property.

iii) Customary Law of Punjab:
As interpreted by Rattigan’s Digest of Civil Law for Punjab and subsequent judicial pronouncements.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

The Court held that property inherited from a maternal grandfather does not qualify as ancestral property under the customary law of Punjab or under Hindu law. The Court endorsed the view expressed in Narotam Chand v. Mst. Durga Devi (ILR [1950] Punj 1), overruling earlier Full Bench decisions.

Justice Gajendragadkar emphasized that ancestral property, by its very nature, descends through the male line. Property acquired through female lineage lacks this essential characteristic. The Court also clarified that earlier Punjab High Court decisions like Lehna and Attar Kaur were not founded on any concrete evidence of custom but were based on erroneous reasoning that failed to differentiate between general and technical meanings of “ancestral property.”

The Court underscored that the Privy Council’s decisions in Attar Singh v. Thakar Singh (1908) LR 35 IA 206 and Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahay (1937) LR 64 IA 250 authoritatively settled the issue.

b. OBITER DICTA 

The Court elaborated that the principle of stare decisis cannot shield incorrect precedents when their reversal would not disrupt settled titles or contracts. The doctrine exists for stability but is not inflexible. The Supreme Court has the discretion to correct earlier mistakes to prevent perpetuation of injustice and legal error.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Ancestral property must descend exclusively through the male line.

• Property inherited through maternal ancestors does not confer birthright interests to sons.

• Courts should not hesitate to overturn incorrect precedents where no vested rights are disrupted.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment represents a watershed moment in Indian customary and Hindu law jurisprudence. It brought clarity to a long-contested area of law by reconciling Punjab’s customary law with foundational principles of Hindu law and authoritative Privy Council rulings. The Supreme Court’s logical dismantling of the Punjab High Court’s earlier inconsistent rulings ensures coherence and predictability in succession law.

Importantly, the judgment reinforces that customary law must be substantiated with cogent evidence rather than conjecture. The Court’s refusal to apply stare decisis merely for the sake of tradition serves as a reminder that legal correctness outweighs blind adherence to precedent.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i) Narotam Chand v. Mst. Durga Devi, ILR [1950] Punj 1

ii) Lehna v. Musammat Thakri, (1895) 30 PR 124

iii) Musammat Attar Kaur v. Nikkoo, (1924) ILR 5 Lah 356

iv) Muhammad Husain Khan v. Babu Kishva Nandan Sahay, (1937) LR 64 IA 250

v) Attar Singh v. Thakar Singh, (1908) LR 35 IA 206

b. Important Statutes Referred

i) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Section 110
ii) Punjab Limitation (Custom) Act, 1920 – Article 2
iii) Rattigan’s Digest of Civil Law for Punjab (Customary Law)