A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The Supreme Court judgment in Thakur Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari, 1952 SCR 825 is a seminal authority on the enforceability of customary laws of succession in Punjab, especially in the context of self-acquired property of a woman. The apex court ruled that even if marriage was presumed between the appellant and the deceased woman Ram Piari due to cohabitation, the custom sought to be applied by the appellant could not be enforced unless firmly proven. The Court reasserted the principle that the existence of custom must be shown by evidence of long, invariable usage having the force of law. The judgment also laid down foundational guidelines to test the validity and application of customary laws, especially within the context of Punjab’s agrarian society governed by Riwaj-i-am (local custom records). The plaintiff’s claim failed both on factual grounds (marriage unproven) and legal grounds (absence of proof of enforceable custom applicable to self-acquired property received from a stranger). The case is pivotal in interpreting the evidentiary threshold required to prove marriage and custom, and its implications resonate deeply in matters relating to succession, legitimacy, and applicability of customary laws over codified Hindu Law.

Keywords: Punjab Customary Law, Presumption of Marriage, Succession Law, Self-acquired Property, Riwaj-i-am, Agrarian Custom, Hindu Law, Inheritance Rights, Long Cohabitation, Legal Status of Custom.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgement Cause Title: Thakur Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 158 of 1951

iii) Judgement Date: 16 May 1952

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Hon’ble Justices Saiyid Fazl Ali and Vivian Bose

vi) Author: Justice Saiyid Fazl Ali

vii) Citation: AIR 1952 SC 231, 1952 SCR 825

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 5, Punjab Laws Act, 1872

• Sections 50 & 60, Indian Evidence Act, 1872

• Sections 109 & 110, Civil Procedure Code, 1908

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case (if any): None

x) Case is Related to which Law Subjects: Customary Succession Law, Hindu Law, Evidence Law, Personal Law, Property Law

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

This case centers around the alleged succession rights of Thakur Gokal Chand, a Rajput by caste from Hoshiarpur, Punjab, over the estate of Ram Piari, a Gurkha woman with whom he allegedly had a matrimonial relationship. The property in dispute was self-acquired by Ram Piari through a gift from a wealthy benefactor, Raj Kumari, and upon her death, both Raj Kumari and Parvin Kumari (daughter of Ram Piari) laid claim to her estate. The appellant argued that by custom applicable to Rajputs in Punjab, he had preferential inheritance rights as husband over the daughter. The case traversed complex questions concerning the existence of marriage, enforceability of customs, and validity of claims over self-acquired property under such customs.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The appellant, Thakur Gokal Chand, asserted that he was the lawfully wedded husband of Ram Piari and thus entitled to her estate under customary law prevailing among the Rajputs of Hoshiarpur. He claimed Ram Piari had acquired property through Raj Kumari, who had allegedly taken her away under the pretense of temporary separation but never returned her. According to him, Ram Piari had a daughter with him, Parvin Kumari, but upon Ram Piari’s death, Raj Kumari took possession of the property on the basis of a will in favor of Parvin Kumari.

Raj Kumari and Parvin Kumari disputed the existence of the marriage, argued that Ram Piari never married the plaintiff, and maintained that the property was self-acquired through Raj Kumari’s efforts. They also claimed the existence of a valid will favoring Parvin Kumari, and that Hindu law applied, under which a daughter had precedence over a husband regarding the mother’s estate.

The trial court ruled in favor of the appellant but the High Court reversed the decision, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether Ram Piari was the legally wedded wife of the appellant, thus creating a marital nexus for succession.

ii. Whether the custom set up by the appellant was applicable to Ram Piari’s self-acquired property.

iii. Whether the customary law of inheritance among Rajputs of Hoshiarpur gave precedence to a husband over a daughter in succession matters.

iv. Whether the will executed by Ram Piari was valid and enforceable.

v. Whether the presumption of marriage based on long cohabitation was rebutted by evidence.

F) PETITIONER/ APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that Ram Piari and Thakur Gokal Chand were married according to Hindu rites. They produced witnesses including a priest and other villagers to testify about the marriage and cohabitation. They argued that Parvin Kumari was their daughter and that societal recognition of the couple as husband and wife reinforced the presumption of a valid marriage.

They contended that according to the Riwaj-i-am applicable to Rajputs in Garhshankar Tehsil, the husband was entitled to inherit the estate of his wife, even if it was self-acquired, unless the custom specified otherwise. The plaintiff emphasized that his Rajput lineage and his roots in agricultural society placed him firmly under the purview of customary law.

They further asserted that Hindu law was inapplicable as the Rajput community in Punjab was governed by custom under Section 5 of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872, which overrides general Hindu Law when a valid custom is proven.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i. The counsels for Respondent submitted that no valid marriage ever took place between the plaintiff and Ram Piari. They pointed to contradictions in the plaintiff’s story and argued that the so-called marriage was never proven through convincing evidence or reliable testimony. They highlighted that none of Ram Piari’s family or independent witnesses from the locality supported the marriage claim.

Further, they argued that Ram Piari’s property was not ancestral but self-acquired through the aid of Raj Kumari. Therefore, even if the plaintiff was her husband, the custom he relied upon had no application to such property. Moreover, under Hindu Succession Law, a daughter is the rightful heir to the mother, especially in the absence of codified or valid customary alternatives.

They emphasized that the will executed by Ram Piari in favor of Parvin Kumari was valid, and no prohibition under any proved custom barred such disposition.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i. Section 5, Punjab Laws Act, 1872 – allows customary law to prevail over personal law in matters like inheritance when custom is established.

ii. Section 50, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – relates to relevance of opinions on relationship when expressed through conduct by those having special knowledge.

iii. Sections 109 and 110, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – regarding appeals to the Supreme Court.

iv. Section 27, Evidence Act, 1872 – on the admissibility of discovery statements by accused, though not directly central in this case, appeared in accompanying judgments.

I) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI

i. The Supreme Court held that long cohabitation may raise a rebuttable presumption of marriage, but in this case, the evidence clearly rebutted that presumption. The appellant could not prove a lawful marriage with Ram Piari.

ii. The Court emphasized that custom must be proven through consistent usage, unaffected by exceptions, and not based on isolated or rare instances. The custom relied upon by the plaintiff did not meet this test.

iii. The Court observed that even if Ram Piari was married to the plaintiff, the property being her self-acquired asset from a third party (Raj Kumari), could not be claimed by the husband without specific proof that the custom extended to such property.

iv. The presumption in favor of entries in Riwaj-i-am can be rebutted if it adversely affects women and lacks participation from them during its compilation.

b. OBITER DICTA 

i. The Court observed that customs differing from Hindu law exist widely in Punjab’s agrarian society, but courts must cautiously evaluate their applicability to evolving societal roles and personal status.

c. GUIDELINES 

The Supreme Court formulated the following principles regarding customary law:

1. No presumption exists that any class is governed by custom; it must be proved.

2. A custom must be certain, reasonable, and followed consistently.

3. A custom must obtain the force of law through long and invariable usage.

4. Riwaj-i-am may serve as evidence but is rebuttable and not conclusive.

5. Custom cannot apply to self-acquired property of a woman unless explicitly shown.

6. Customary law cannot override fundamental principles of justice and gender equality.

7. Parties claiming benefit under custom bear the burden of proof.

J) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The decision in Thakur Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari serves as a judicial milestone in limiting the sweeping application of unproven customs over established personal law, especially where women’s rights are concerned. The Supreme Court’s insistence on strict proof of custom and lawful marriage helps protect the rights of women and their heirs from vague customary claims. It also advances the jurisprudence regarding the intersection of personal law, customary practice, and modern principles of evidence and succession. The ruling’s legacy lies in its careful demarcation of the boundaries between traditional norms and judicial scrutiny, thus reinforcing procedural due process and gender justice.

K) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred

i. Daya Ram v. Sohel Singh, 110 P.R. (1906) 390
ii. Abdul Hussein Khan v. Bibi Sana Dero, (1917) 45 I.A. 10
iii. Mt. Subhani v. Nawab, AIR 1941 PC 21
iv. Ahmad Khan v. Mt. Channi Bibi, AIR 1925 PC 267
v. Beg v. Allah Ditta, AIR 1916 PC 129
vi. Saleh Mohammad v. Zawar Hussain, AIR 1944 PC 18
vii. Muhammad Hayat Khan v. Sandhe Khan, 55 P.R. (1906) 270
viii. Muzaffar Muhammad v. Imam Din, ILR (1928) 9 Lah 120
ix. Narain Singh v. Mt. Basant Kaur, AIR 1935 Lah 419
x. Khedam Hussain v. Mohammad Hussain, AIR 1941 Lah 73

b. Important Statutes Referred

i. Punjab Laws Act, 1872, Section 5
ii. Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 50 and 60
iii. Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Sections 109 and 110