* Answer to Question No. 2, Section No. V -
“Where the sons inherit and there are more sons than one. –
(1) Age. – In no tribe is any regard paid to the age of the sons, nor is there any custom by which the eldest or youngest son takes more or less than his brothers. So far as age is concerned, all the sons inherit equally. (All tribes).
Note. - The only case of inheritance in which regard to the age of the sons, is in the devolution of the office of headman. This goes strictly in the eldest branch; so much so, that if the eldest son of the deceased headman be dead or unfit, it will go to his eldest son, though a minot, in preference to a younger son of the deceased.
(2) Caste. – In no tribe is any regard paid to the caste or tribe of the mother, provided that she was of a tribe with which marriage is by custom permissible. So far as the caste of the mother is concerned, all the sons share equally. (All tribes).
(3) Uterine descent -
(a) No regard is paid to uterine descent. All the legitimate sons, whether descended from the same or different mothers, take equal shares.
(All tribes except the Rains and Chamars)
(b) The sons share the property of the father according to the number of mothers: the sons, however few, of one mother taking as much as the sons, however many, of another. (Chamars)
(c) There are instances both of division according to the number of mothers and of division by sons without regard to uterine descent. It is not clear whether the sons should take equally without regard to uterine descent, or should take according to the number of mothers. (Rains)
Note. – Among several other tribes besides the Rains and Chimers, there are instances of the sons having divided the property according to the number of mothers, or having made an unequal divison on some other principle. In such cases, the unequal division had usually been made in deference to the wishes of the father, or for some special reason, as, for instance, because, the sons have made an unequal division of the father’s debts or of the expenses of his funeral, which among the Bagri Jats and other Hindu tribes are often very heavy. Some of the Sikh Tarkhans and Hindu Khatris say that the property should be divided according to the number of mothers; and some of the Mussalman Kumhars say that so long as the mothers live, they and their sons take each half the property, and on the death of the mothers, the sons share the whole equally. But the majority of these tribes, as well as the other tribes, except the Rains and Chamars say that each son has an equal right to share in his father’s estate, whether the sons are all of one wife or of several. The sikh Jats and the Wattus say that formerly the rule of division according to number of mothers was more commonly followed than it is now and that is is gradually becoming less and less common. This seems an interesting case of gradual but sure change of custom, The strong general feeling again division according to mothers is strengthened among Mussalmans by the knowledge that such a division is not in accordance with Muhammadan Law.
Division according to number of mothers is called in Punjabi chundavand, or division by brains of hair (chunda) or mawan hissa or maonvand, in Hindi Maonbat or Maonbant. Division among the sons equally, without regard to the numbers of mothers, is in Punjabi pagvand, in Hindi bhaiyonbat or pagbant, i. e., division according to the number of pagris or males.
(8) Associated and disassociated heirs – generally succeed equally.
As a general rule under Customary Law associated and disassociated heirs succeed equally and the onus of proof is on those asserting the country (1).
Held to succeed equally.
81 P. R. 1874 (F. B.) – Banias of Jagadhri.
21 P. R. 1881 – Jats of Tahsil Pipli, association with the deceased
gives no Preferential right of succession among heirs who are other- Wise equally entitled.
C. A. 821 of 1882 – Jats of Ambala District.
127 P. R. 1884 – Sidhu Jats, Tahsil Jagadhri.
71 P. R. 1887 – Bains Jats, Tahsil Rupar, and generally.
18 P. R. 1872 – Agriculturists of Ambala District, generally.
58 P. R. 1892 – Sheikhs of Mauza Sams, Attock District.
102 P. R. 1876 – Jats of Delhi, in the absence of a clear separation, by which all future claims are relinquished.
123 P. R. 1879 – Brahmin Agriculturists of Dharm Kot, Zira Tahsil.
22 P. R. 1884 – Agriculturist Fbrahmins of Tahsil Basaon,
75 P. L. R. 1904 – Rajputs of Dasuya Tahsil.
9 P. R. 1877 – Dhariwal Jats of Lahore District.
32 P. R. 1891 – Jats of Lahore District.
44 P. R. 1884 – Khatris of Lahore, in regard to ancestral
32 P. R. 1891 – Jats of Lahore District.
76 P. R. 1879 – Jats of Mauza Aghwar Lopan, Tahsil Jagraon.
129 P. R. 1890 – Jats of Mauza Sokewal, Tahsil Pasrur.
Held, associated heirs to exclude disassociated heirs.
7 P. R. 1870 – Hindus of Ambala District, governed by Hindu Law.
143 P. R. 1888 – Jats of Ferozepur District, where the separation
was of villages.
8 P. R. 1876 – Agriculturists of Jullundur, where associated heir
had originally taken one instead of two shares.
19 P. R. 1874 – Jats of Lahore, general.
44 P. R. 1884 – Khatris of Lahore, in regard to self-acquired
C. A. 498 of 1871 – Hindus of Ludhiana District, governed by Hindu
(9) Property acquired by sons in a joint family.
When an estate has been held jointly by father and sons and one of the sons has acquired property, is such property excluded from partition on the death of the father.
Generally the rule is that the self-acquired property of one son, a member of a joint family, does not devolve on that son to the exclusion of the others on partition unless in the case of property received from his father-in-law’s or maternal grand-father’s family when it remains his absolutely, but if a son lives separately from his family any property he may acquire remains his own.
“Custom coincides with common sense” (1)
“The property acquired with the aid of joint resources is deemed joint and will be divisible among all the sons. The other property acquired by the son or sons living jointly with the father will be exempt from distribution. Most of the tribes, however, state that as the moveable property of both classes is not distinguishable it is divided among all the sons” (2).
“When an estate has been held jointly by a father and his sons, all the property is divided equally on his death by all the sons, with the exception of such moveable property as the women’s ornaments and clothes” (1).
Dera Ghazi Khan District.
“All tribes in the Jampur and Rajapur Tahsil and all tribes excepting the Khosas and miscellaneous Biluches in the Dera Tahsil state that all property acquired by a son in a joint family is invariably subject to division. The Muhammadan tribes of the Sanghar Tahsil would however exempt property inherited from the mother’s side. The Khosas and miscellaneous Biluches of the Dera Tahsil on the other hand state that property acquired by individual exertion is exempt from division.
The Hindus throughout the district state that property acquired by a son in a joint family is subject to division” (2).
Dera Ghazi Khan District.
“All tribes except Babars and Biluch Pathans in Paniala.
In a joint undivided family, all property held jointly by the father and his sons at the former’s death will be divided equally among the latter. But property acquired through a female by gift or otherwise is not included and remains in the exclusive possession of him who acquired it.
If one of the brothers die childless after the division of the ancestral property and have no widow to succeed him, his share would go to his uterine brothers.
If the deceased had some personal endowment in the shape of a Jagir or inam it would descend to his eldest son.
Hindus say that with the consent of the owner, acquired property may be distributed with the joint property” (3).
“The property acquired by the son or sons or inherited from maternal grand father, father-in-law or any relation of wife will be exempt from distribution. The property acquired with the aid of joint resources is deemed joint and will be divisible among all the sons” (1).
“All the tribes with the exception of the Brahmans and Mallahs of the Shakargarh Tahsil state that property acquired by any of the sons by gift or by inheritance in the female line or through a female will be considered his separate property. The Brahmans and Mallahs state that all property acquired will be considered joint as long as the family remains joint, whether the acquisition be made by gift, or inheritance or otherwise. The earnings of a son are, as a rule, considered his separate property only after he has separated from the rest of his family. Only the following tribes regard them as his separate property even when he has not separated from the rest of his family :-
Gurdaspur – Kakkezais.
Batala – Brahmans and Khatris,
The property acquired by means of the joint resources of the family is not considered as the separate acquisition of any son” (2).
“Generally the rule is that the self-acquired property of one son, a member of a joint family, does not devolve on that son to the exclusion of the others on partition unless in the case of property received from his father-in-law’s or maternal grandfather’s family when it remains his absolutely, but if a son lives separately from his family any property he may acquire remains his own. Mahtons, however, say that if a son receives property from his maternal grandfather it does not remain his separate property, but all his brothers are entitled to participate, while Brahmins and Khatris go slightly farther and say that all brothers are entitled to participate in any property acquired by one from a relative who is equally related to all of them, and that if the brother who acquires insists on keeping it to himself he cannot succeed to his father’s property on his death” (3).
“All tribes. – In such cases property acquired by one of the sons is set apart and goes to him alone. The estate of the father, whether move-able or immoveable, ancestral or acquired, is shared by all the sons” (4).
“Janjuas of Jhelum, Moghals of Jhelum and some Maits.
Property acquired by gift or inheritance from relations through a female is excluded from partition, unless the sharer who acquired it consents to its inclusion. Property otherwise acquired is divided equally by all, provided the family is joint.
All other tribes, including Hindus –
Except by consent of the person who acquired it all such property is excluded from partition” (1).
“All tribes. – The self-acquired property of one son remains excluded from partition as well as the property acquired by him by gift or succession from maternal grandfather or his father-in-law or other relative through a female.
The property acquired from the joint income of the family is liable to partition even though it may be in the name of one son” (2).
“Generally the rule is that the self-acquired property of one son, a member of a joint family, does not devolve on that son to the exclusion of the others on partition unless in the case of property received from his maternal grandfather or others when it remains his absolutely, but if a son lives separately from his family and property he may acquire remains his own” (3).
Tahsil Kaithal and Parganah Indri (Karnal District).
“If a son, who lives with his father and is joint with him in food. Acquires property, it is not excluded from partition on the father’s death. If, however, the son became separate in his father’s life-time, and subsequently acquired property, his brothers have no claim to share in such property” (4).
“All tribes. – The property acquired with aid of joint resources is deemed joint and will be divisible among all the sons. The other property acquired by the son or sons living jointly with father will be exempt from distribution” (5).
“At last Settlement the custom was found to be that only separate property acquired by gift or will, or in jahez, or from the wife’s relations, was excluded from partition ; but the Hindu Rajputs of Samrala said that no property, and the Dhaliwal Jats of Ludhiana that only property received from the wife’s parents, is excluded from partition.
The universal custom now is that all property acquired by one son in the life-time of their father remains his exclusive property on the death of the father” (6).
“All tribes, - When an estate has been held jointly by a father or his sons, all the property moveable or immoveable whether ancestral or self-acquired, is divided equally on his death by all their sons with the exception of property which may have been acquired by a son by inheritance from his mother’s father or by gift or by order of court, or acquired by the son himself and kept separate from the other property (or among Hindus acquired through his wife)” (1).
“All sons share equally in the joint property. If, however, a son has acquired property through a female, he is entitled to get it to the exclusion of other brothers” (2).
“When an estate has been held jointly by a father and his sons all the property, moveable or immovable, whether ancestral or self-acquired is divided equally on his death by all the sons, with the exception of property which may have been acquired by a son by inheritance from his mother’s father or through his wife or by gift. Such property is retained by the son who has acquired it” (3).
“Among Muhammadans of the district there is no such thing as joint proprietorship of a father and his sons. In the life-time of the father the family estate belongs to his, unless he expressly alinates it from himself by gift. Accordingly acquisitions by sons will or will not be divisible with the estate according as they were or were not merged in it while in the father’s hands. There is no obligation on the son, if an adult, to merge his separate acquisition in the family estate” (4).
“Jats throughout, Brahmans throughout, Hindu and Muhammadan Rajputs throughout, Ahirs, Pathans of Gohana reply that has gone to any son through his mother or wife, which is excluded. Subject to this all shares equally (except where chundabat prevails) no distinction being made between married and unmarried sons, or between the one that performed the kiria and the other. The Pathans, Sheikhs and Biloches of Jhajjar give the same answer, but with the rider that if any son takes his share of the father’s property during the latter’s life-time and separate off, then at the father’s death he does not share in the distribution of the joint estate, nor have his brothers any claim on his share or on anything he may have acquired since separation” (5).
“Mussalmans generally –
When an estate has been held jointly by a father and his sons, and is distributed amongst them on his decease, all the sons share equally in the whole property, moveable or immoveable, ancestral or acquired, except (1) property which has been given to one of several wives by her own family, which goes to her own sons only, and (2) property which one sharer has acquired by gift from outside the family or otherwise, which remains with him.
The same, except that all the property is divided except what one sharer may have acquired for himself by gift or otherwise.
On partition, after the death of a father, it is usual to keep as common property of the sons any property set apart for religious or charitable purposes (dharm khata) such as a dharamsala or a tank or a sum the proceeds of which are spent on such purposes in the father’s name. If the property has hitherto been held in common, the whole of it comes into the partition except property which may have been acquired by one sharer by gift or otherwise and is still in his or her separate possession, but even such property, if it has become merged in the joint property, is brought into the partition” (1).
“Yes (the acquisitions made by the sons are exempt from distribution) provided that the son or sons acquired the rights without any contribution from joint sources.” (2).
(10) Preference of one son to the other.
Can a father in his life-time nominate a particular son as the fit person to take a larger share than his brethren after the father’s decease ?
It is generally admitted that the father has no such power with regard to ancestral property ; though he has full liberty with respect to his acquired property. In certain cases a particular son may be nominated and may receive a gift during his father’s life-time which he may retain permanently, but cannot take a larger share than his brothers on his father’s death either in addition to or in lieu of such gift. Such cases, however, are exceptional. (Such a custom exists in Sanghar in Dera Ghazi Khan District – See answer to Question No. 30, Customary Law of the Dera Ghazi Khan District.)
In some cases a man may allot one son a larger share than his brethren, but it has no effect after his death except where the property is self acquired, in which case a man can make such distribution as he likes.
“None of the tribes admit the father’s power of unequal division as regards ancestral immoveable property. His power regarding self-acquired property is also denied by all the tribes except the following : -
Pathankot. – Sainis.
Batala - Brahmans, Khatris, Arians and the Sayyads of Batala town.
Gurdaspur – Hindu and Mohammadan Jats, Harnis, Arians, Gujrats.
Mallahs, Khatris, Brahmans, Bedis and Sodis and Pathans,
Sayyads and Kakkezais. There is, however, difference of
opinion among the Pathans.
There is no well-defined custom as regards moveable property, The father can of course dispose of it as he likes in his life-time. Any disposition of it intended to take effect after his death will be considered invalid by the tribes, that deny his power of unequal distribution in regard to self-acquired immoveable property” (1).
“Among all tribes, except Mahajans, a father cannot mominate a particular son to take a larger share than his brothers ; among Mahajans a father can divide his self-acquired property among his sons as he likes ; but he cannot do so in regard to his ancestral property (2).
“All tribes except as noted below –
No : except as regards property acquired by himself : Jhelum Janjuas say he cannot do so even in that case.
See reply to Question No. 42 (page 285).
Gujars, family of Fatteh Muhammad, son of Nardad of Kala.
The father has this power, as entered in the old Riwaj-I-am.
Janjuas of Pind Dadan Khan, Gakkhars, Phaphras, Awans of Tall agang –
The father can appoint a larger share for a favourite son or a smaller share for a disobedient son, but the difference ought not to be large and no instances can be given where this has been done, except one in Dandot Amongst the Janjuas” (3).
“A father cannot direct an unequal distribution of his ancestral property among his sons, but he can give larger share out of his self-acquired property to any one of his sons.
In the Nawanshahr Tahsil a father has no right to give one of the sons a larger share of his property than the others whether the property be ancestral or self-acquired.
Among Jat Muhammadans, Arains, Awans and miscellaneous Muhammadans of the Jullundur Tahsil father cannot distribute unequallyhis immoveable property whether it may be his ancestral or self-acquired but he may do so in case of moveable property” (1).
“The Rajputs, Katoches, Mahajans, Ghirths and Jats of Nurpur Tahsil say that a father can give a larger share to a particular son even if the property is ancestral. All the tribes of Dehra and Hamirpur Tahsils also say the same.
The Brahmans and Thakars and Rathis of Nurpur Tahsil say that he can give a larger share only in self-acquired property. All the tribes of Kangra and Palamput Tahsils say that the father has no such power and has never exercised it.
All the tribes except those of Dehra and Hamirput Tahsils say that a father can exclude a particular son in case of change of religion and of leading an immoral and extravagant life” (2).
“Son far as ancestral property is concerned, a father can in his life-time give one of his sons a larger share of his property, than the others : but such an arrangement has no effect after the death of father, and all sons are entitled to succeed equally. The custom of the “chosen son’ is unknown.
But a man can gift his self-acquired property to one of his sons, especially when he is living with him. What is usually done is to acquire the land by purchase or mortgage in the name of the favoured son, who continues to be the sole proprietor even after the father’s death” (3).
“All Mussalmans except Jats and Biloches –
If a father permanently separates off one of his sons, giving him certain property and the other sons live with him, neither the separated son nor those associated with the father can after the father’s death claim to equalize the distribution.
But if a son is separated as a temporary arrangement and is given a piece of land by way of maintenance, then the shares are equalized after the father’s death.
A Jat father can in his life-time nominate a particular son to receive a large share of the property than his other sons, after his death, if the property be self-acquired. He cannot, however, make such deposition in respect of ancestral property”.
A father cannot in his life-time nominate a particular son to receive a larger share of the property than his other sons, after his death.
Note. – The customs alleged by the Jats and Biloches are not supported by examples. Among the Jats ancestral property has been distributed unequally among the sons and similar disposition of property has also been made among the Biloches. The custom therefore appears to be the same among all Mussalmans, in fact all tribes. It appears however that whenever an unequal distribution is intended, the father gives effect to it in his life-time.
“A father can in his life-time nominate a particular son to receive a larger share of his property than his other sons after his death, whether the property be ancestral or self-acquired” (1).
“Arains of the Lodhran Tahsil and Mitru Rajputs of Mailsi say that father has such power. All Muhammadan tribes of the Multan Tahsil, except Pathans, Sayyads and Qureshis, say that a father has such power but it must be exercised in writing and is provisional on the sons being by one mother.
Hindu tribes of Shujabad admit the power in favour of an able son, who is expected to improve the property but say that effect must be given during the life-time of the father” (2).
Pathans, Sayyads, Qureshis, the Hindus of Alipur, Jats of Leiah, Jats, Biloches and Pathans of Kot Adu, Jats Biloches and the Pathans of Muzaffargarh Tahsil are agreed that a father cannot in his life-time nominate a particular son to receive, after his death, a larger share of his property than his other sons. Among the Jats of Kot Adu there are instances wherein the father had given a rather larger share to a son who was standing for lambardarship or zaildarship. All these instances were really by consent of the whole family to prevent the appointment from passing away from it. The Biloches, Pathans, Sayyads, Qureshis and Hindus of Leiah Tahsil and the Sayyads, Qureshis and Hindus of Kot Adu and Muzaffargarh Tahsils and the Jats and Biloches of Alipur Tahsil depose that among them a father can in his life-time nominate a particular son to receive a rather larger share of his property than his other sons after his death. Among the Pathans of Leiah Tahsil this preference, if given, is generally given to the eldest son.
Among the Sayyads and Qureshis of Leiah Tahsil, the Qureshis and Hindus of Kot Adu, the Sayyads, Qureshis and Hindus of the Muzaffargarh Tahsil a father may give one son a larger share out of self-acquired property, but not of ancestral property. The instances given by the Sayyads of Leiah, however, show that this was done in case of ancestral property (3).
A father cannot in his lifetime nominate a particular son as the fit person to take a larger share than his brothers after the father’s decease.
A father can in his lifetime gift a larger share to one son than to the others (4).
8. Share of predeceased son.
The share of a son who predeceased his father descens to his son, and the son of such son.
(11) Right of representation – principle.
The principle of representation generally recognized in the Punjab according to the Customary Law is that when there are male descendants who do not all stand in the same degree of kindred to the deceased, and the persons through whom the more remote are descended from him are dead each descendant takes the share which his immediate ancester, if alive, would have taken. The nearer does not exclude the more remote. The estate is divided into such a number of equal shares as corresponds with the number of the male lineal descendants of the deceased, who either stood in the nearest degree of kindred to him or, having been of the like degree of kindred to him, died before him leaving male lineal descendants who survived him. The share of each male lineal descendant is taken by him, if he himself is alive and if he is dead, the share is taken by his male lineal descendants (1).
To illustrate the principle -
(died during the life-time of
A, his father)
A dies leaving behind him his son C and his grandsons, Dand E, sons of B, A’s son who died during his life-time. D and E will get one-half of A’s property in equal shares as representing their deceased father B while C will inherit the other half.
“As regards the succession to proprietary rights, the principle of representative generally recognized in the Punjab is that if a man be dead his place is taken by his son, or, if the son also be dead, by the grandson, and in such a case the son or grandson is in just as good a position as the father or grandfather” (2).
Principle of representation inapplicable where parties are governed by personal law and not custom.
The principle of representation is not recognized either by Hindu of Muhammadan Law, and cannot, therefore, be applied to cases where the parties are admittedly governed by their personal law and not by custom (3).
Amongst the Gaur Brahmans of village Chiragh in Delhi Province, who are governed by agricultural custom, the remoter kindred are not excluded by the nearer kindred (4).
Amongst Rawals of the village Pandori Bibi in the Tahsil and District of Hoshiarpur, there is a custom modifying Muhammadan Law to the extent of allowing the son of a predeceased son to succeed his grandfather (1).
But where the parties are governed by strict Muhammadan Law (Pathans of Ludhiana City), theory of representation does not apply (2).
Under the Shia Law, however the right of representation exists, and applies equally to females as to males (3). – Sayyads, District Ambala.
Daughter and daughter’s son of a predeceased son.
Principle of representation applies to daughter and daughter’s sons of a predeceased son also. According to the general agricultural custom a grand-daughter and her sons are more or less on the same footing as a daughter and her sons as against a distant collateral. In Inayat v. Mst. Bharai (4), in which the parties were Dinga Sials of Jhang District, Tek Chand, J. observed – “In answer to Question No. 5 given by the members of the Sial tribe it is distinction stated that if a person dies leaving the descendants of a pre-deceased son, their descendants succeed to his property in the same way as the pre-deceased son would have himself succeeded. This indicates that the right of representation is recognized to the fullest extent amongst the members of his tribe. The answer is in accord with the general agricultural custom of the province which on the whole favours the right of descendants of a pre-deceased person to succeed.”
By custom among Sayyads of Kharkhauda, District, Rohtak, the right of representation exists in favour of females (5), Their Lordships of the Privy Council, while affirming the judgement of the Lahore High Court in the above case, observer. – “But Sarfraz Ali was dead and the plaintiff his daughter alleges that by the code of customary rules regulating succession in the family. (Arab Sayyads), the principle of representation is sanctioned, and she claims that by virtue of it she, as Sarfraz Ali’s daughter, in the absence of male issue, represents him and stands in his place. Their Lordships agree that representation is a part of the rules of succession in this family. It is settled by judicial decision that a son in matters of inheritance represents his deceased father, and the record discloses instances of succession in which a widow was recognized as the representative of her husband, and a daughter as the representative of a deceased uncle. It is thus shown that sex is not a bar to representation but widows and daughters in the absence of sons can claim the right in their favour” (6). Similarly, it has been held that among Sayyads of District Ambala, daughters have a right of representation (7).
Burden of proof
The burden of proving the inapplicability of the principle of representation is on the party denying the right of representation.
Right of representation has been judicially found to exist among –
148 P. R. 1890 – of Dera Ismail Khan and Bhakkar.
C. A. 2354 of 1886
130 P. R. 1888 of Jhelum District.
39 P. R. 1884 – Agarwal Banias of Gurgaon.
8 P. R. 1881 – of Gujrat.
C. A. 1067 of 1871
C. A. 1325 of 1871 of Ambala.
C. A. 766 of 1878
91 P. R. 1879
26 P. R. 1885 – Ranjha Jats of Mauza Wan, Tahsil Bhera.
129 P. R. 1890 – of Mauza Sokiwar, Pasrur, Sialkote.
196 P. L. R. 1912 – of Jagadhari, Ambala District.
8 P. R. 1907 – Muhammadans of Banga, Tahsil Nawanshahr, District Jullundur.
17 P. R. 1913 – Muhammadan combination-markers of Jhelum City.
140 P. R. 1908 – Shamsi Khojas of Lahore District.
C. A. 925 of 1881
71 P. R. 1882 of Karnal.
172 P. R. 1882 – of Mauza Lalton, Ludhiana District.
51 P. R. 1896 – Bannu, in succession to estate of unmarried females.
80 P. R. 1882 – Mauza Shinka, Attock District.
3 P. R. 1890 – Abbas Khels of Bannu District.
99 P. R. 1893 – of Bannu District.
50 P. R. 1894 – Kaka Khels of Peshawar District.
62 P. R. 1871 – of Amritsar District, if male heir has already
succeeded to father, but if he has abandoned his father’s estate, he cannot succeed to an uncle equally with another uncle.
60 P. R. 1878
82 P. R. 1887
1921, 2 Lah. 383 Sayyads of village Kharkhauda, Rohtak
1920, 4 Lah. L. J. 496
1924, 6 Lah. 117 P. C.
102 P. R. 1901 – Gardezis of Tahsil Lodhran and Multan.
25 P. L. R. 1906 – Sufis of Ludhiana city.
A. I. R. 1935 Lah. 540 – Sayyads of Ambala District.