The position of collaterals residing in another village – (a) against cognates, (b) against proprietary body.

Ambala District.

127 P. R. 1884- Sidhu Jats of Jagadhri.

71 P. R. 1887- Bains Jatsof Tahsil Rupar.

11 P. R. 1905- Sheikhs of Mulana, Ambala District.

 

Attock District.

58 P. R. l892 -Sheikhs of Saman, Tahsil Attock.

29 P. R. 1900- Kutab Shahi Awans of Attock Tahsil.

1925, 91 I. C. 482- Ferozal Khattars, Attock District.

 

Ferozepur District.

105 P. R. 1876- Bagri Jats of Ferozepur District.

4 P. R. 1893- Jats of Moga Tahsil.

 

Gujranwala District.

148 P. R. 1908- Samra Jats of Hafizabad Tahsil.

 

Gujrat District.

4 P. R. 1891- Muhammadan Jats.

 

Gurdaspur District.

58 P. R. 1911- Sidhu Jats of Tahsil Gurdaspur.

 

Hoshiarpur District.

4S P. R. 1890- Naru Rajputs of Hoshiarpur District. But see

31 P. R. 1903 (p. 99) quoted above in which opposite view has been held regarding Naru Rajputs of Hoshiarpur Tahsil.

 

12 P. R. 1891- Muhammadan Jats, Hoshiarpur District.

 

Jhang District.

50 P. R. 1909- Sials of Jhang District.

 

Jhelum District.

22 P. R. 1899- Awans, Talagang Tahsil.

 

Jullundur District.

110 P. R. 1891- BaryahRajputs, Jullundur District.

68 P. R. 1893- Jats, Nawashahr Tahsil.

 

Karnal District.

22 P. L. R. 1913- Jats of Kamal District.

 

Lahore District.

75 P. R. 1889- Chohl Jats of Lahore Disirict.

 

Ludhiana District.

116 P. R. 1889- Jats of Ludhiana Tahsil.

 

Mianwali District.

65 P. R. 1917 Awans of Mianwali .District. Both these cases

1923, SLab. 117 were distinguished In 1926, 8 Lah. 127 for "Nammal" tract.

 

Peshawar District.

68 P. R. 1896- Mitba Khel Pathans, Peshawar District.

 

Rohtak District.

29 P. R. 1905- Yusafzai Pathans, Rohtak District.

 

Shahpur District.

97 P. R. 1919- Gondals of Tahsil Shahpur.

 

Sialkot District

47 P. R. 1901- Bedi Khatris of Sialkot District.

 

(59) The position of collaterals residing in another village

(a) against cognates, (b) against proprietary body.

 

As a general rule, the mere fact that collaterals are resident in another village is no bar to their succeeding to ancestral land, but where the property is self-acquired their rights are sometimes postponed till the extinction of near cognates.

 

In Lakha v. Bari (1) the parties were Hindu Girths of the Kangra District. The land in dispute was situate in Mauza B, and was self- acquired by one A, who had migrated from N, the village of his original’s son K died sonless leaving a widow, who gave the land to her daughter’s’ sons. The plaintiffs, residents of N, were descendants of an ancestor of A and claimed the land. It was observed .by Plowden, "If the land were In the village of the parties, and It had been shown that it had devolved upon Kinatu from a common ancestor of the parties, or even if thus last circumstance could not be shown the presumption might and probably wou1d be in favour of the plaintiffs,. as the nearest kinsmen of the last holder, the deceased Kinatu. But it is a very material difference that the land is in a different village, and has never been enjoyed by a common ancestor of the plaintiffs and of Kinatu.

 

The nearest kinsmen of a deceased sonless man are not necessarily his heirs in respect of his property of every description including land. Wherever situate. We know by experience that when the society of which they and the deceased are members, is an exogamous one the nearest kinsmen are commonly the heir to his ancestral land in the same village to the exclusion of daughters and their issue. There is in such circumstances a double foundation for the title of kinsmen, one, community of descent, and, the other, that the land is part and. parcel of the village territory occupied by their ancestors. But when a kinsman has separated himself from family of origin, and migrated to another territory and acquired land there, and his line becomes extinct for Jack of lineal male descendants, the only title which the kinsmen of the last male holder can stand upon is one by community of descent. It is not known to the courts by experience that this alone is commonly recognized as being a good title to land in the village where the deceased or his ancestor had settled, and in which the kinsmen are strangers. In such cases the land has not, as in the former class, devolved from a common ancestor. The conditions in the two classes of cases are dissimilar; and there is no knowledge by experience, upon which a presumption in favour of the kinsmen can be founded".

 

In Mst. lchhri v. Jawahira (1) a dispute was regarding succession to the property of a deceased sonless proprietor, in respect of property acquired by the latter's father. It was found that plaintiffs-collaterals were descended from a common ancestor but residence. in a village different from the village of origin and the defendant had married a member of the same caste and resided with him in the village of origin and had entered upon actual possession of the property since the death of the deceased proprietor's widow. Held, that if the land in suit were ancestral and the plaintiffs resident of the village, the daughters could not succeed in preference to the collaterals of the last owner, but that under the special circumstance of the case, the burden of proof lay on the plaintiffs who failed to show that they could oust the defendants from her father's inheritance.

 

To the same effect see Sham Ram v. Mst. Hemi Bai(2), a case relating to Dhal Khatris of Muzaffargarh District.

 

In Rukan Din v. Mst. Mariam (3) it was held that where a new village was founded within boundaries of the old village, the proprietors of the new village held not a preferential right of succession to the estate of a deceased sonless proprietor over the near collaterals residing in the old Maua-a. In Chef Singh v. Samand Singh (4), a case relating to Dhillon Jats of Amritsar District, it was also observed that there was no rule of customary law in force excluding collaterals resident in another village, in fayour of proprietors in the deceased's village though not related to him.

 

In Khuda Yar v. Sultan (5) again, the plaintiffs, collaterals, who owned no land in the village in question, upon whom the onus rested, failed to establish a custom under which they excluded the deceased's daughter's sons from succession to his acquired property. It was similarly remarked in Kala Singh v. Narain Singh (6) that where it could be shown that the family of the objectors to an alienation bad for generations back entirely cut themselves off from their village of origin, and had settled in another village, or that they had unmistakably shown by their conduct that they had given up any rights they might have had to property in such village of origin, the onus would rightly be laid on the collaterals to prove their right to object to an alienation of land situate in a village other than that in which they themselves resided.

 

The point again came for decision before a Full Bench in Daya Ram v. Sahel Singh (7) in which it was held that it was not laid down by Lokha v. Hari (8) and other subsequent rulings on the subject, that mere community of descent gave the agnates of a deceased land-owner no right of succession to acquired land left by him in a village in which they did not own any land; and that a collateral did not lose his right as against the proprietors of the village merely because he owned no land in the village and resided elsewhere.

 

A person by reason of his abandonment of the ancestral holding, and having settled permanently in a different village, is not precluded from claiming his rights of inheritance in the property left by a deceased collateral in the ancestral village (1).

 

A nephew of a deceased proprietor, who does not reside in the village where the deceased left property and is not a proprietor therein, succeeds in preference to the village body on whom the onus is (2).

 

The mere fact that the collateral does not reside in his own land in the village does not disentitle him to succeed (3).

 

Where there has been a division among the descendants of a common ancestor, each party taking a separate village, those taking in one village are excluded by those taking in the other, when the succession is in the latter (4).

 

Prima facie, the agnates of a deceased person are entitled to a share in his estate even though they live in another village and own no land in the village in which land belonging to the deceased is situate (5).

 

(60) Collaterals residing elsewhere versus daughters.

 

When a person separates himself l from his family of origin and migrates to another territory and acquires land in a village, if the contest is between collaterals residing in the village of origin and the daughters of the deceased, the burden of proof will be on the collaterals to prove that they in such a case exclude the daughters (6).

 

A migrated from his village of origin and acquired land in a certain village where he died leaving a daughter. Held, that, under the special circumstances of the case, the land not being ancestral and plaintiffs not being residents of the village in which it was situate, the onus was on the plaintiffs to prove that by some special custom they had a preferential right to the daughter, which they had failed to discharge (7).

 

Plaintiffs claiming to be collaterals but not being owners in the village, were held not entitled to exclude a daughter's son, the onus being on them (8).

Khana-Damad

27. A resident son-in-law, or Khana-Damad, was, under some of the older decisions, recognized as an heir to the father-in-law' s estate in default of male issue.

But according to the more recent decisions, it is his wife as a daughter, and her issue, as grand-children, whom by reason of her continued residence with the father after her marriage, are alone intended to be benefited by custom.

Hence the onus lies on the Khana-Damad to prove that he is entitled to exclude the ordinary heirs in his own right.

(61) Right of resident son-in-law (Khana-Damad), to succeed.

It was, observed by Sir Charles Roe in his Tribal Law in the Punjab, pp. 66, 67-"This paragraph represents perfectly correctly what may be called the general ideas of Punjab Officers on this subject. There was, and is, 1i'very general idea that the custom of making a 'resident son-in- law' is very general throughout the Punjab. and that it of itself confers rights either, as was formerly supposed, on the son-in-law himself, or, as now believed, on the daughter, or rather on her sons. But this idea is in no way supported by the Riwaj-i-ams, In the first place, even the practice or taking a son-in-law and his wife into the house is not nearly so common as generally supposed; in many districts it is said to be altogether unknown. Where the practice does exist, the benefit to be derived from it is no doubt regarded by custom as one to the daughter’s sons, and not to their father personally. But by custom mere residence in the father's house confers no rights on the daughter, her husband or her children; it merely in some districts or tribes allows greater freedom of gift or adoption in such cases. It is expressly stated in all the Riwaj-i-ams that without a distinct gift, or adoption, or proclamation of appointment as heir, no right of succession is conferred by residence. The only answers to all in a contrary direction are.

In Sialkot some tribes in 1865 expressed an opinion that khana-damad would succeed, in default of sons, if he renounced all claim to his father's estate.

In Rawalpindi the Ghakkars, Khattars and Rajputs (except the Chauhans) and the Hindus (except those of Kohut a), who are, however nearly all priests. and traders, say that in these cases the daughter.

In Hoshiarpur the Jats of Garshankar say that a khana-damad 'succeeds in' default of sons."

A khana-damad is a man who marries the daughter of a sonless proprietor and, instead of taking the girl away to his own house lives on with her in her father’s house performing services for him' helping "to manage. his property, and generally making up the position of a. son .(1). As observed by Gordon Walker, J. in Mst. Lado v. Nabr Baksh (2), "there is no recognized custom in the Punjab according to which mere residence of a daughter and her husband in the house of her father from the day of her marriage, there Being also sons, would confer on the daughter and her sons any right of successions. The essential feature of the custom of-khana-damadi appears to be tha1. in default of male issue a proprietor may take his daughter and her husband to live with him in order to apply the want of male issue. It seems to me quite inconsistent with the idea underlying the custom of khana-dazmadi that a daughter and her sons should be able to acquire any rights of succession in the presence of sons."

Again, it was observed in Nanda Singh v. Kheta (1)-"The custom of khana-damadi is designed to benefit the daughter and her issue, Mst. Ramln the daughter died many years ago and Kharku her husband succeeded to the property for life on the equivalent of a widow's estate Mst. Raman left no issue. Male or female, and on Kharku's death it appears to us obvious that the property must revert by inherit rice to her own blood retaliates. Kharku was not her 'heir' by law or custom for anything beyond a. life-estate, and it is clear that if he were not. Her full heir, the sons of Kharku by another woman can have no right to. Succeed to their step-mother's property." Similarly, it was remarked In Fazal Ahmad v. Ditta (2)-"A khana-damad certainly does not rank as an: adopted son; .if he did, he would succeed to the whole estate and his sons by any wife would succeed after his death, no matter whether their mother was daughter of their father's adoptive father or not, whereas it is beyond dispute that if a khana-'damad had no sons by that wife who was daughter of the man who made him a khana-damad he certainly could not pass the estate to his sons by another wife. But to assume that because a khana-damad does not rank as an adopted son he can take nothing except what is expressly gifted him is wrong."

Thus khana-damadi is an institution whereby a sonless 'man associates with him in his lifetime his son-in-law, who resides with hint. cultivates for him and eventually succeeds to him for a life-interest. acting as a means of transmitting the estate to the original proprietor's son.-Notes on Punjab Custom by Ellis, 1921 Edition, p. 90

Hindu feeling is not in favour of the institution of the ghar-jawai. as the following proverb depicts.

Sohre ke ghar jawai kutta Bahin ke ghar bhai kutta.

(Rose's Customary Law, p. 198).

(62) Some special features regarding the institution of khana-damadi.

(a) The appointer must be sonless.

It is quite inconsistent with the idea underlying the custom of Khana - damadi that a daughter and her sons should be able to acquire any rights of succession in the presence of sons (3).

When there are sons alive, mere residence of a daughter and her husband from the day of her marriage does not make the latter a khana-damad. There must be default of male issue before a son-in-law can be made a Khana-damad-Arains of Ludhiana Tahsil (1).

It was observed in Abdulla v. Muhammadu(2)-"The last two facts make it probable that Mahmud was not suffering from leprosy at the time or at all events, that his disease had not then assumed such a severe form as to render him incapable of managing the family affairs or to drive his father to seek the help of his daughter and her husband to look after himself and his land. It is also unusual for a man with male issue to keep khana-damad, and we do not think custom would recognize the validity of such an appointment."

(b) Ordinarily only a daughter's husband can be appointed khana-damad.

8 P. R. 1888- Gujars of Gujrat District. It is only the daughter's husband who can be khana-damad. The husband of a niece cannot be held to be so, and he cannot succeed as khana-damad.

128 P. R. 1890- Lalla Jats of Gujrat District. A daughter's husband only can be a khana damad. Sister's sons, who claimed to be treated as resident sons-in-law, were not recognized as such.

14 P. R. 1907- Gujars of Gujrat. The son-in-law of a khana-damad is not entitled (even when appointed khana-damad by his father-in-law) to inherit the estate of the latter's father-in-law.

Contra.

92 P. R. 1895- Jats of Gujrat District. A grand-daughter's husband can be appointed as khana-damad. What the appointer could have done in the case of a daughter, he could do equally in the case of a son's daughter to secure succession to a lineal descendant through a female.

106 P. R. 1901- Bangial Jats of Kharian Tahsil. The resident son-in-law need not be the first husband of the daughter, a daughter's second husband being able to fulfil the necessary conditions, even though that husband happened to have been resident son-in-law in his first wife's family, his first father- in-law having died before the second marriage.

28 P. R. 1905- Waraich Jats, Gujrat District. It makes no material difference whether the khana-damad is the husband of the daughter or son's daughter. The essential-principle in both cases is that of allowing a lineal descendant through a female to succeed as if he were a lineal descendant through a male.

29 P.R. 1907- Khingar Jats, Tahsil Chakwal, Jhelum District. A sister's on recognized as a khana-damad. A gift to him was held valid.

(c) The khana-damad cannot usually be appointed before marriage.

28 P. R. 1905- Varaich Jats, Gujrat District. An assertion in a deed that the donor intends to make his daughter's husband khana-damad is not sufficient to entitle him to succeed as it does not constitute a person actual khana-damad.

70 P. R. 1908- Bokhari Sayyads of Gujrat District. The deceased some three days before his death when he was sickening from plague, made an oral will leaving all his property to his daughters and declaring that their husbands should be khana-damad." Held, that the extension of the institution of "khana-damad" to a future husband of the daughters was inadmissible.

2 P. R. 1910- Gujars of Ludhiana District. There is no vestige of authority for extending the institution of a khana-damad so as to cover the case of a future possible husband of the daughter.

But see 134 P. R. 1883, where it has been held that where a daughter does not marry till after her father's death, if it be proved the father's intention was to make the husband khana-damad, such intention suffices to give him that status.

(d) The son-in-law must be brought to the father-in-law's house. It is not enough if the latter goes to the son-in-law's house. When the father-in-law sells his own house and goes to live with his daughter's husband, the latter is not regarded as a resident son-in-law (1).

But it is not necessary that the khana- damad should take up his residence immediately on marriage, and the removal of the doli will not affect the case.

109 P. R. 1891- The fact of the daughter's doli being taken to her husband's house first in another village after her marriage is not essential to the institution of khana-damad, when the husband and the daughter came back and resided for a long time with the proprietor, the daughter's father.-Gujars of Tahsil Khairan, Gujrat District.

134 P. R. 1893- Gujars of Kharian Tahsil.

50 P. R. 1894- BargiaI Jats, Gujrat District. Where the gift in dispute had been made by a Bangial Jat of Gujrat District, to a daughter, whose husband had resided with her father for the last eight years, though not from the time of marriage, held, that the gift was authorized by the terms of the Wajib-ul-arz and the Riwaj-i-am.

104 P. R. 1907- Although the daughter's doli did in the first instance leave her father's house and upon her second marriage again, it was not certain When she began to reside with her father.

She was even then considered as a wife of a khana-damad, as her husband had continuously lived for a long time in his father-in-law’s house where the children were born.

(e) Mere residence will not confer the status of a khana-damad. There must be a distinct intention to appoint.

139 P. R. 1892- Manjh Rajputs of Ludhiana District. "It appears to be sufficiently proved that H resided in his father-in-law's house, but we do not think that there was any formal appointment of him as heir to M. The opinion of the Divisional Judge. That succession as an heir owing to the mere fact of a son-in-law residing with his father-in-law is a general and well established custom does not appear to rest upon any solid ground." (page 474).

134 P. R. 1894- Waraich Jats of Tahsil Gujrat.

"Another feature of the institution which I think is well established is that the son-in-law appointed to succeed must have qualified so far as possible by residence in his father-in-law's village, and that the intention to appoint him must be in some way manifested. This intention may be indicated by a gift to the daughter or to the husband. or it may be presumed from the fact that the daughter even as a bride never left her father’s house, but continued after marriage to reside there (page 505).

35 P. R. 1897- Chohan Gujars. Kharian Tahsil, Gujrat District.

"On the other hand, it can hardly be contended that every daughter who has since her marriage continued to reside in her father’s house is entitled to succeed to her father's estate to the exclusion of his agnates. There must be evidence, direct circumstantial. that a son-in-law was taken into the house with a distinct intention that there should be such a succession" (page 160).

28 P. R. 1905- Varaich Jats, Gujrat District.

For the purpose of allowing a man to succeed as a. khana-damad or his wife as the wife of a khana-damad there must be evidence of a bona fide intention on the part of the donor to bring a man with him as his son-in-.law. which should not be held proved (a) except by the man's having been brought there, having resided continuously afterwards and having rendered services, {b) where there is a mere assertion in the deed of gift of intention to make a khana-damad in future .

(f) An act of gift is unnecessary to complete, if the facts show

intention.

24 P. R.1879- Varaich Jats of Gujrat District.

162 P.R. 1882- Muhammadans, Mauza Lila Garaon, Tahsil Kharian.

15 P.R. 1885- Varaich Jats of villa So Mauza Sheikh Ali Ke, Gujrat District.

31 P.R 1895- Gujars of Gujrat District:

A married daughter was entitled to succed ,even though no definite act of donation was proved. where it was a fair inference from the established facts that the sonless proprietor settled his. daughter. and her husband in his house and on his land with a view to their succeeded him as his heirs to the exclusion of collaterals.

106 P. R.1901""; Bangial Jats Tahsil Kharian.

See also, under.the Chapter on "Alienation,"

(g) The object of the institution is to benefit the daughter and her male issue, the daughter acting as a conduit.

The principle underlying the custom is that the daughter and her issue should be benefit in consideration for her and her husband residing with and performing services, (such as looking after the house and managing the land), for her father (I). Where the usage of khana damad is recognized, the purpose is to benefit the daughter and her male issue (2)

Where gift is made in a sense directly to the husband of the’ donor’s daughter, but is really intended for the benefit of the daughter and her issue, the husband's reversioners are not competent to contest an alienation. by the widowed daughter in favor of her son-in-law (viz., daughter and her issue) (3)

Where the custom prevalent in the tribe recognizes the cause of khana.damad (as amongst Gujars of Gujrat Distinct), the primary purpose is to benefit the issue of the daughter and her husband, but in all such cases the intention is also to benefit the daughter and her husband, though only incidentally (4), '

While on the one hand "every daughter who has since her marriage continued to reside in her father's house is not entitled to succeed to her father's estate to the exclusion of his agnates in the case of Chohan Gujars of Gujrat District," in the absence of "evidence direct or circumstantial, that a son.in-law was taken into the house with a distinct intention that there should be such a succession " ; on the other hand, "the true use of the khana-damad in customary law is to pass on the inheritance to the daughter's sons" (5).

The rule laid down in 12 P. R. 1892 [F, B.] established the principle that where the usage of khana-damad is recognized as giving rise to customary rights the purpose is to benefit the daughter's sons, the daughter and her husband benefiting only incidentally (6).

A khana-daman issue by another wife does not benefit (7).

Female issue also does not benefit. A son-in law of a khana-damad even if himself appointed khana-damad by his father-in. law, is not allowed to succeed (8),

(h) There is no limitation to the number of khana-damads.

15 P. R, 1884- Varaich Jats of Gujrat District.

35 P. R. 1897 Chauhan Gujjars of Gujrat District. ."

39 P. R. 1897 – Awans Tahsil Kharian, Gujrat District.

80 P. R. 1902- Varaich Jats, Mauza Shadiwal, Gujrat (case of two khana-damads).

55 P. R. 1903- Janjuas, Jhelum District, (case of two khana-damads).

6P. R. 1900

103 P. R. 1907 Arains of Mauza Naraingarh, Ambala District.

But see 1 Lah. 245. in which it has been held that among Langaryal Jats of Tahsil Kharian, Gujrat District, she can appoint a khana-damad with authorization of husband. It was remarked in this case-"The question whether a sonless widow can, of her own authority, make her son-In-law a khana-damad does not arise in the present case.

(63) Khana-damad's right of succession

(a) Claim to succeed to his father-in-law in his own right.

It has already been noted above that where the usage of khana-damad is recognized. the purpose is to benefit the daughter and her male issue. Is a khana-damad entitled to succeed to the property of his father-in-law in his own right?

In Mahla v. Shah Muhammad (1), in which the parties were Varaich Jats of Gujrat District, it was held that the rights of the khana-damad were the same however he might be appointed whether by gift to himself or by gift to his wife or by the expressed wishes of the father-in-law that he should succeed, the condition of residence having in all cases to be fulfilled and that he was entitled to hold for life, and his tenure could not be cut short by the failure to beget male children or by the decease of his wife during his life-time.

Where the custom prevalent in the tribe recognizes the usage of khana-damad (as amongst Gujars of Gujrat District) the primary purpose is to benefit the issues of the daughter and her husband, but in all such cases the intention is also to benefit the daughter and her husband though incidentally. Accordingly, though the collateral heirs of the husband would have no right to claim such property after his death without issue, a gift when made by a Gujar of the Gujrat District, whose husband is a resident son-in-law, enures for the benefit of the latter during his life-time and this, too. in case where the gift is nominally in favour of a daughter who happens to pre-decease her father, and to leave no issue her surviving (2).

In Faiza v.Ata Muhammnad (3) the last male Owner made a gift of ancestral land to his daughter and on the daughter's death he allowed her husband to take possession, and on his death his nephew sued the son-in-Ia for possession of the land; held, that even if the plaintiff consented to w gift to the daughter and her descendants, it did not follow that he consentea a gift to the daughter's husband. It appeared in this case that the son in-law was not a khana-damad.

Contra.

In Ghulam Bhikh v. Massania (1) in which the parties were Taoni Rajputs in Kharar Tehsil of Ambala District, it was held that by custom a khana-damad had no title in his wife's right or his Own to hold the land of his wife's father against the collaterals of the latter, after the death of the father's widow. Among this tribe it was found that daughter's sons were not favored by custom.

According to the custom of the ghirths of Kangra Tahsil and District when the wife of a resident son-in-law dies during the life-time of he; father and leaves no sons, her husband, On her father's death does not succeed to the father's immoveable ancestral property, either absolutelyor for life (2).

Thus where the daughter dies without issue before her father the khana-damad does not ordinarily succeed, and the onus is on him.

In Muhammad Azim Khan v. Husain Khan (3), a case relating to is a Khel Pathans of Mianwali District, a resident son-in-Jaw was allowed to Succeed where the father-in-law's property was self-acquired and situate in a village different from the village of origin.

Neither the khana-damad nor his descendants are precluded from claiming a share in ancestral property of own family. Merely by reason of his having succeeded his father-in-Jaw (4).

(b) Khana-damad's succession to his wife.

In Mahla v. Shah Mohammad (5) the parties were Varaich Jats of Gujrat Tehsil and the plaintiffs, who were related to the donor, Nur in the fourth degree, sued to contest the right of defendant, a resident Son in-Jaw, to retain, after the death of his wife, certain land which the said Nur had by will directed his widow to make over to his daughter and her husband, the defendant. The point for decision was as to the rights of a resident son-in-law in a case where the daughter of the proprietor had died without male offspring before her husband. Held, that the rights of a resident son-in-law are the same however he may have been appointed whether by gift to himself or by gift to his wife or by the expressed wishes of his father-in-law that he should succeed, the condition of residence having in all cases to be fulfilled, and that he is entitled to hold for life, irrespective of the failure to beget male offspring or of the decease of his wife during his life-time.

A damad is a mere appendage to the resident daughter, and whatever gift is made to her or to him is made for the ultimate benefit of the daughter's issue of the father's stock. On the failure of such issue the property given ravens to the kinsmen of the donor, and not to the kinsmen of the daughter's husband. The resident son-in-law will, however, keep the property for his life-time. Awans of the land got of the Sial, Tehsil (1).

Among Gujars of Gujrat the son-in-law of a khana-damad is entitled, (even when appointed khana-damad by his father-in-Law) to inherit the estate of the latter's father-In-law (2).