“1887. – The right of representation is universally admitter, the sons of a deceased son succeeding jointly to their father’s share. Muhammadan tribes expressly notice that they are governed in this point by Hindu custom and not by Muhammadan Law.
1918 – The Sunni Sayyads of Sadhaura, Naraingarh Tahsil, show some tendency to follow Muhammadan Law which excludes the sons of sons who predecease their father (1).
Dera Ghazi Khan District.
“All the Muhammadan tribes of the district (excepting the Khosa and miscellaneous Biluches of the Dera, the Gurchannis of Jampur, and the Biluch tribes of the Rajanpur Tahsil) who professed to be governed by the Muhammadan Law in matters of inheritance, state that grandsons do not receive their deceased father’s share unless it is formally bequeathed to them by their grandfather. Among Hindu and the Biluch tribes included in the exception mentioned above the grandsons receive the share of their deceased father. The preference given to the provision of Muhammadan Law by the Legharis, Sori and Tibi Lunds is, however, a very recent discovery on their part and there are no instances of the grandsons being deprived of their share, while instances to the contrary are numerous” (2).
“The Biluch tribes throughout the district allow grandsons only the share their deceased father would have received with the exception of those of Sanghar who say that if there are no sons but only grandsons, the latter share equally unless their grandfather by will makes an unequal division. Among the Jat tribes grandsons are only entitled to share in the event of no sons having survived, and in thtt case the Jats of Sanghar and Rajapur say the estate is divided among all grandsons equally (per capita), while those of Dera Ghazi Khan and Jampur divide the estate according to the share of the sons (per stirpes). Sayyad custom is identical with that of the Jats of the same tahsil.
As before, but the Legharis and Lunds (Sori and Tibbi) and some other miscellaneous Bilueh tribes now profess to follow the provisions of the Muhammadan Law, viz., that grandsons are not entitled to a share in the presence of sons without a special will, and in the case of there being no surviving son, the grandsons will divide the estate equally (per capita). The Khetrans of Vahoa follow the Muhammadan Law” (1).
Dera Ismail Khan District.
“Babars and Biluch Pathans of Paniala follow the Muhammadan Law, whereby the grandsons get no share when sons are alive.
Note. – These latter tribes persistently state this rule, but I believe in practice it would be regarded as injustice and no satisfactory instance was produced” (2).
Exceptions. Some Pathans allege that in accordance with Muhammadan Law the more remote relatives are excluded by the nearer descendants. They have quoted one instance in which the surviving sons of a man excluded from inheritance the sons of their brother who had predeceased their father” (3).
“The universal practice in respect of exclusion of more remote by nearer lineal descendants is opposed to the Shara, viz., the nearer do not exclude the more remote. The simplest case is that where the deceased leaves a son and a grandson, the father of the latter being dead. By Peshawar custom the son and the grandson inherit equally. A few city families possible follow the strict rule of Muhammadan Law ; one instance of its observance is alleged among the Khwaja community” (4).
“All tribes, except city Saiyads, are agreed that the estate will devolve according to the ordinary rule of inheritance whether per capita or per stirpes, among the male lineal descendants (5).
(12) Right of representation. – Pagvand v. Chundavand rule.
According to the general rule of representation described above when there are male descendants who do not all stand in the same degree of kindred to the deceased, and the person through whom the more remote are descended from him are dead, each descendant takes the share which his immediate ancestor, if alive would have taken. To illustrate it
A dies. He had two wives Mst. X and Mst. Y. from X he had a son B who died during the life-time of his father, and from Y he had three sons C, D and E all alive at his death. B left two sons F and G surviving at the death of A.
If pagvand rule prevails in the family, F and G will inherit one-fourth of A’s property while the remaining three-fourth will go to C, D and E. If chundavand rule prevails, F and G will inherit to the extent of one-half and C, D and E the other half on A’s death.
The onus of proving the contrary rests on the person denying it.
See also notes under “Principle of representation among collaterals.”
9. Widow of predeceased son.
The widow of a sonless son who predeceased his father, is, in some tribes, permitted to succeed to his share, but the right is not universally admitted, and the onus of proving it lies on the widow who asserts it to exist.
(13) Widow’s right of collateral succession – onus of proof.
The following cases may be studied with advantage.
Authorities in favour of a son’s widow’s succession to his share.
A. R. R. 1933 Lah. 350 – Jats. According to the custom in Ambala District
=144 I. C. 471 Widow are entitled to succeed collaterally in theSame manner in which their husbands would Have Succeeded. The burden of proving that the widow of the collateral is not entitled to succeed to the estate of the last holder , is on the person challenging alienation, in view of the mutation in her favour and of her undoubted possession of the land in suit.
133 P. R. 1893 – Hindu Jats of Ajnala Thsil. The widow of a predeceased brother proved entitled to succeed to the estate of her deceased brother-in-law as against the collaterals of the deceased.
30 P. R. 1909 – Randhawa Jats of Amritsar District. Widow has got the right to succeed collaterally.
51 P. R. 1909 – Bhullar Jats. A widow who has inherited her husband’s pro perty to which her husband, if alive, would have succeeded.
A. I. R. 1935 Lah. 312 – Khatris following agricultural custom. Widow of
=16 Lah. 476 predeceased son succeeds equally with her
=158 I. C. 249 husband’s brothers.
25 P. R. 1888 – Jats. Even when re-married to brother of first husband succeeds to estate of co-widow derived from the husband, in presence of brothers of deceased.
40 P. R. 1909 – Udasi Sadhus. Widow succeeds collaterally.
90 P. R. 1888 – Rajputs. Widow succeeds collaterally.
7 P. R. 1909 – Brahmans, Shakargarh Tahsil. Widow succeeds collaterally.
51 P. R. 1909 – Bhullar Jats. Widow succeeds collaterally.
177 P. R. 1889 – Naru (Muhammadan) Rajputs of Hoshiarpur District. Widows succeed collaterally.
56 P. R. 1891 – Bariah Rajputs of Tahsil Una. Widow succeeds collaterally.
98 P. R. 1891 – Naru Rajputs of Dasuya Tahsil. Widow succeeds collaterally.
111 P. R. 1891 – Hindu Rajputs, Widows in possession of their husband’s estate are entitled to succeed to property left by the collaterals of their husbands on the same footing as the husbands themselves would have inherited, if still living.
43 P. R. 1905 – Bahanaut Rajputs, Garshankar Tahsil. Widow even though not,in possession of her husband’s estate is entitled to succeed collaterally.
A. I. R. 1935 Lah. 954 – Gakhars, A widow is entitled to succeed collaterally. Where certain persons contest the right of a widowTo succeed collaterally the onus is on them.
146 P. R. 1889 – Arains of Nakodar Tahsil. Widow succeeds to her husband’s brother in the presence of a collateral of the 7th degree.
162 P. L. R. 1902 – Jats. Widow succeeds collaterally.
44 P. R. 1905 – Mahtams of Jullundur District. Widow succeeds collaterally.
98 P. R. 1910 – Muhammadan Jats. Widow succeeds collaterally. The onus on her is not heavy.
32 P. R. 1915 – Pathans of Mauza Riayatpur, Tahsil Nakodar. Widow is entitled to succeed collaterally. There is a presumption in favour of collateral succession among predominant tribes in Jullundur Doab and the onus of disprovinga widow’s right of collateral succession was on the opposite party.
121 P. R. 1916 – Pathans of Basti Mithu. The widow of the deceased proprietor is entitled to succeed to his collateral’s estate in the same way as her deceased husband would have done if he had been living.
93 P. L. R. 1904 – Rajputs. Widow succeeds collaterally. Onus is on her to prove that.
71 P. R. 1906 – Girths, Tahsil Hamirpur. Widow succeeds collaterally. The right is neither an extraordinary unusual, nor exceptional one.
1927. 100 I. C. 1014 – Muhammadan Gujjars, Kangra Tahsil. Widow succeeds
=A. I. R. 1927 collaterally.
20 P. R. 1895 – Gil Jats. By general custom and the custom of Jats of the Ludhiana District, the widow of a sonless proprietor is entitled to succeed on a life tenture to any estate or share to which her husband would have succeeded. In this case the onus was placed on the other side.
15 P. R. 1906 – Johal Jats of Jagraon Tahsil. Widow is entitled to succeed collaterally. In this case the initial onus was laid on the widow, but it was doubted whether this was correct because something might be urged against this on the strength of the finding in 20 P. R. 1895.
A. I. R. 1948 – (Obiter) – Since the answer to Question 24 in the Customary Lah. 113 Law of the Rawalpindi District lives a widow the Right of collateral succession only where she has succeeded to the estate of her husband, it is difficult to hold that the statement of the custom in the aforesaid question and
Insert Page No. 292-93
30 P. R. 1909 – Randhawa Jats, in presence of brother.
Dera Ghazi Khan District.
C. A. 994 of 1889 – Bilochis. Widow of a predeceased grandson given a share.
A. I. R. 1937 Lah. 612 – Sindhu Jats of Fazilka Tahsil. Sonless widows of Predeceased sons are entitled to succeed to the Property that their husbands would have inherited.
75 P. R. 1888 – Baraich Jats of Mauza Shadiwal.
8 P. R. 1889 – Gujars of Tahsil Kharian. Dissented from in 97 P. R. 1891.
C. A. 872 of 1869 – Rajputs of Hoshiarpur District.
23 P. R. 1892 – Ghorewala Rajputs of Garshankar Tahsil.
19 I. C. 122 – 137 P. L. R. – Mohammadan Rajputs. The widow of a
Predecease sons are entitled to succeed to the property That their husbands would have inherited.
20 I. C. 876=322 P. L. R. 1913 – Sainis of Hoshirpur District.
=166 P. W. R. 1913.
88 P. R. 1881 – Samra Jats, Jullundur District,
19 P. R. 1911 – Nigar Jats, Jullundur Tahsil. The widow of son’s son of the deceased is entitled to take for life-time or until remarriage equally with the son of the deceased.
1922, 3 Lah. 181 – Jats, Jagraon Tahsil. A widowed daughter-in-law (if sonless)succeeds along with a son.
A. I. R. 1927 Lah. 28 – Jats. The widow of a grandson of a deceased owner of = 7 Lah. 552. property is entitled to share equally in his prope with his sons, There is no difference between the case of a daughter-in-law and a grand-daughter-in-law on this point.
84 P. R. 1908 – Isa Khel Pathans of Mianwali District,
168 P. W. R. 1915 Aroras of Multan District.
Cases in which the widow of a predeceased son was not allowed to succeed.
75 P. R. 1879 – Shia Sayyads of Mauza Sadhaura, Ambala District.
9 P. R. 1895 – Panwan Jats of Taran Taran Tahsil, in presence of other son, but is entitled to maintenance.
30 P. R. 1910 – Tarkhans of Amritsar city, in presence of grandnephew.
123 P. R. 1890 – Sayyads of Delhi District, husband being the only son.
50 P. R. 1910 – Qureshis of Ferozepur city, in presence of 4th degree collaterals.
C. A. 1455 of 1886 – Gujrat District.
97 P. R. 1891 – Gujrat of Tahsil Kharian, Gujrat District.
93 P. R. 1891 – Dhillon Jats. By custom the widow of a predeceased son is not entitled to her husband’s share of the immovable estate, but is undoubtedly entitled to maintenance.
115 P. R. 1893 – Mahtons of Mauza Bohan, in presence of other son.
71 P. R. 1913 – Jhanda Jats, Hoshiarpur Tahsil, in presence of other sons, but get area sufficient for maintenance.
1923, 3 Lah. 236 – Joshi Brahmans.
C. A. 432 of 1869 – Mohammadan Jats.
59 P. R. 1897 – Mohammadan Rajputs of Tahsil Chunian.
100 P. R. 1901 – Khatris of Mauza Aklaba, under Hindu Law.
1922, 87 I. C. 3 – Aroras of Kasur Town. Daughter-in-law not entitled to succeed in preference to the collaterals, under Hindu Law.
85 P. R. 1912 – Gujars of Ludhiana District, in presence of other son.
102 P. R. 1907 – Banjahi Khatris, but is entitled to maintenance.
62 P. R. 1889 – Chimbah Jats, in presence of other son.
Under Hindu Law.
65 P. R. 1866 – in presence of husband’s sister.
20 P. R. 1872 – in presence of father’s widow, but gets maintenance.
1921, 4 Lah. L. J. – Brahmins. Hindu Law applied.
The widow of a predeceased grandson.
269 P. L. R. 1913 The widow of a grandson is entitled to be
168 P. W. R. 1913 maintained by her husband’s grandfather
44 P. W. R. 1914 so long as she remains unmarried and lives in her deceased husband’s house.
10. Step-sons (pichlags) as a class are not entitled to succeed to the estate of their step-father, in the presence of male collaterals, even where they have long lived with, and been brought up by, their step-father, or to succeed as collaterals in the family of the step-father.
(14) Right of step-sons to succeed.
As a general rule, step sons do not inherit the property of their step-father or succeed collaterally in the family of their step-father, though they do not lose their rights to the estate of their natural father. They are not ordinarily entitled to be maintained by their step-father. They may, if they live with their mother, be maintained by their step-father till they come of age (1).
Authorities – Claim to succeed step-father disallowed.
18 P. R. 1879 – Kang Jats of Nakodar Tahsil, District Jullundur; A step-son does not succeed to his step-father even if he has been living for
30 years with the latter.
C. A. 662 of 1879 – Arains of Ferozepur District.
95 P. R. 1891 – Hindu Jats, Sampla Tahsil, Rohtak District.
109 P. R. 1893 – Begal Jats, Ludhiana Tahsil. A step-son does not collaterally
110 succeed in his step-father’s family, even when adopted.
75 P. R. 1906 – Hindu Sikh Jats, Sirsa Tahsil. A step-son does not succeed to the exclusion of collaterals.
1925, 27 P. L. R. 68 – Gujars of Tahsil Jhelum.
The burden is on the step-son to prove a special custom in his favour.
Dera Ghazi Khan District.
“The general answer of Hindus and Muhammadans throughout the district is that the step-son succeeds his natural father only. The Jats tribes of the Jampur Tahsil say that if his mother receives her share of her second husband’s estate as fixed by the Muhammadan Law, he will inherit if there are no sons by such husband, in which case it will be one-fourth, and will divide it with his half brother, if there are any, in which case it will be one-eighth, step-sons and their half brothers all sharing equally” (1).
“A step-son must, if he lives with his mother, be maintained by his step-father till he comes of age, but he can claim no share in his step-father’s property” (2).
“Step-sons are entitled to maintenance from their step-father till they come of age; after that they have to work for their keep” (3).
“If a step-son live with his mother in his step-father’s house, he is entitled to be maintained by the step-father until he is of age (18 years)” (4).
“A step-son is entitled to be maintained by his step-father up to the age of maturity” (5).
If a step-son live with his mother in his step-father’s house, he is entitled to be maintained by the step-father until he is of age” (6).
“Generally a step-son is maintained by his step-father until he grows up out consideration for his mother, though he cannot claim it as of right. The age is variously pur; Mathons say up of 7 years of age, Hindu Jats of Garshankar Tahsil say up to 10 or 12 years, and Sainis and Chhangs say up to 15 years.
Jats, 5th class Rajputs, Saint and Chhangs admit the right of the step-son to maintenance until he grows up.
Rajputs (except those of the 5th class), Pathans, Brahmins, Khatris, Kaials, Sayads and Sheikhs say there is no such custom” (1).
“In the Jullundur Tahsil (except among Mahtons) and Nawanshahr and Phillaur Tahsils step-sons are not entitled to be maintained by their step-fathers.
Among Mahtons of the Jullundur Tahsil step-sons are entitled to be maintained by their step-fathers till the age of 15.
In the Nakodar Tahsil a step-son is entitled to maintenance from his step-father until his majority” (2).
“The Rathis of Kangra Tahsil and Gaddis of that tahsil, all the tribes of Palampur, Nurpur, Dehra and Hamirpur say that a step-son is entitled to maintenance until he grows up and is of age: provided he lives with the sons of his step-father. The remaining tribes say that he is not entitled to maintenance. The question refers only to those tribes which recognize widow’s marriage. Even those tribes which deny the right to maintenance allow it out of consideration for his mother” (3).
“If the step-son live and work with his step-father, he is entitled to maintenance till he grows up (all tribes). Moreover, usually he receives a dote of land in absolute ownership, but he is not entitled to it as of light (4).
“All tribes admitting karao say he is entitled to be maintained by his step-father until he becomes of age, say 18” (5).
Step-sons born after the second marriage of their mother.
Generally no distinction is made even if the step-son is born after the second marriage of his mother. If, however, he asserts that he is the real son of his mother’s second husband and proves it, he will be entitled to inherit. Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act may also be studied in this connections with advantage. The question is one more of fact than of custom.
Step-sons as appointed heirs.
A step-son is at times permitted to be appointed as an heir (1).
See notes under “Adoption or Appointment of an heir”.
Gifts to step-sons.
In some tribes a gift to step-sons is permitted. Gift to a step-son is tantamount to a gift to a stranger.
See notes under “Transfer by gift”.
Note. – The son of a widow by a second husband would not be entitled to succeed to the property left by the first husband (2).
11. Widow’s life-estate.
In the absence of male lineal descendants the widow of the deceased ordinarily succeeds to a life-estate.
12. Widow’s succeed jointly.
If there are two or more widows they succeed jointly.
13. Survivorship among widows.
On the death of one of two co-widows the survivor takes by survivorship, even if she has remarried by karewa, provided such remarriage has not caused a forfeiture of her own share.
14. Widows succession.
The circumstance that the husband was joint in estate with others, does not ordinarily deprive the widow of her right to succeed to his share.
15. Widow’s life-estate.
The rule undoubtedly is that, in the absence of sons and their descendants in the male line, the widows take the land on a life interest. It may of course be possible for a widow to prove in any particular case that she is entitled to take the estate, or a specific share in it absolutely, but the proof required would be of the strictest kind. Even the purely Muhammadan tribe of the Frontier, who profess to follow Muhammadan Law, do not usually admit her right even in theory, and those who do admit it in theory it in theory evade it in practice. Her right to hold the estate for life originated in her undoubted right to maintenance, and many tribes still acknowledge the latter right only” (3).
“The tenure of the widow is very different from that of the reversioner both in its nature and in its origin. The widow’s life-tenure originated in her right to maintenance, but though originally her right was one only of maintenance which in course of time became a right to the enjoyment of the whole estate, whether it exceeded her needs or not, it is not now disputable that her right is to the whole estate.
That right she derives from her marriage; she is her husband’s representative and so far has this principle been carried that in many tribes she represents her husband even in collateral succession” – per Shah Din, J. (1).
As observed by Sir. Meredyth Plowden in Mst. Kauri v. Jamiat Singh (2). – “The widow’s original right to maintenance has developed in many tribes into a right to possession of her husband’s land for her maintenance by sufferance of the reversioners.”
Neither a mother nor a widow, who obtains possession property left by her son or husband for enjoyment during her life or any shorter period, can be regarded as an heir to that property within the meaning of Customary Law (3).
Again, it was remarked by Addison, acting C. J., in Dhalla v. Mst. Fateb Bibi (4): “It is, however, too late in the day to say that a widow or a mother holds the land merely in lieu of maintenance. That may, or may not, have been the origin of their right to get the land, but it has been long held that the widow or mother of a sonless proprietor is entitled to a life-interest in her husband’s estate and not merely to maintenance. It is in extremely few cases in the Punjab and amongst very few tribes or families that a widow takes the estate merely in lieu of maintenance.”
In Allah Baksh v. Mst. Allah Jawai (5) it has been held that a widow does not cease to be the next heir merely because she has only a life-estate. The parties in this case were Charwanas (Muhammadans) of the Jhang District.
Both under Hindu Law and under agricultural custom, a widow is entitled to a life-interest in her husband’s estate, so that the proof of establishing a special custom to the contrary lies on the other party (6).
Cases where life-estate allowed to a widow.
5 P. R. 1868 – Muhammadans (unclassified).
30 P. R. 1868 – Singhpura Jagirdars of Ambala.
28 P. R. 1870 – Jats of Ambala District, in a joint estate.
65 P. R. 1881 – Muhammadans of Mustafabad, Ambala District.
11 P. R. 1896 – Sayyads of Ambala District.
149 P. R. 1888 – Suds of Tarn Taran, in Amritsar District, in a joint estate.
73 P. R. 1906 – Sahswal Rajputs of Fattehjang Tahsil.
8 P. R. 1916 – Khatri Jagirdars of Attock District.
89 P. R. 1886 – Kasuria Pathans of Bannu, in presence of cousin of deceased husband.
Delhi District (old).
74 P. R. 1902 – Bakhari Sheikhs of Mauza Bakarwala, Delhi District.
113 P. R. 1912 – Artizan Sheikha of Delhi (under Muhammadan Law).
101 P. R. 1884 – Sayyads of Ferozepur District.
133 P. R. 1908 – Sodhis of Ferozepur District.
C. A. 954 of 1873 – Jats of Gujaranwala District, in a joint estate.
92 P. R. 1901 – Koreshis of Gujranwala Town.
90 P. R. 1888 – Rajputs of Mauza Lohara, Gurdaspur District.
8 P. R. 1874 – Pathans of Mauza Seoti, Gurgaon Diatrict.
C. A. 1079 of 1876 – Sheikhs of Sirsa.
1923, 4 Lah. 297 – There is no special family custom in the Sodhi family of
=1924 Lah. 116 Anandpore, (District Hoshiarpur) whereby the widow
=76 I. C. 535. of a deceased proprietor is entitled only to maintenance and not to the ordinary life-estate of a Hindu-widow.
95 P. R. 1879
Bokhari Sayyads of Jhang District.
41 P. R. 1895
A. I. R. 1935 Lah. 801 – Bharwanas in Jhang District.
17 P. R. 1913 – Combination-maker Kashmiris of Jhelum City.
114 P. W. R. 1911 – Ansari Pathans of Jullundur Bastis, in presence of a brother.
= 12 I. C 49.
93 P. L. R. 1904 – Rajputs of Kangra District, in presence of near collaterals.
34 P. R. 1880 – Arains of Karnal District.
83 P. R. 1905 – Non-agriculturist Brahmins of Karnal City in a joint estate.
27 P. R. 1868 – Khojas of Kasur.
192 P. R. 1883 – Suds of Lahore District.
6 P. W. R. 1916 – Arains of Lahore District, in presence of brothers and nephews.
20 P. R. 1867 – Awans of Ludhiana District.
C. R. 300 of 1870 – Sayyads of Ludhiana City.
20 P. R. 1895 – Gil Jats of Ludhiana District.
29 P. R. 1903 – Kalar Jats of Jagraon Tahsil.
87 P. R. 1868 – Muhammadans (unclassified) of multan District.
C. A. 1422 of 1887 – Aroras of Multan City, in presence of a father and brother.
18 P. R. 1889 Gardazi Sayyads of Multan District. But see also 4 P. R.
102 P. R. 1901 1888 in which the Muhammadan Law was followed.
66 P. R. 1905 – Mujawars of Tahsil Mailsi.
101 P. R. 1917 – Bhoplas of Tahsil Multan.
24 P. R. 1893 – Khanna Khatris of Peshawar City, a separated family.
104 P. R. 1881 – Moghals of Rawalpindi District, obtaining share according to shara.
59 P. R. 1894 – Awans of Rawalpindi District.
15 P. R. 1915 – Bakral Rajputs of Gujar Khan Tahsil, even if an inferior wife.
82 P. R. 1887 – Sayyads of Mauza Kharkhanda.
114 P. R. 1893 – Non-agricultural Kashmiris of Sialkot Town.
14 P. R. 1911 – Sayyads of Sialkot City.
54 P. R. 1867; 30 P. R. 1868.
Cases where maintenance only allowed to a widow.
40 P. R. 1869 – The Sikh Sardars of Arnauli.
13 P. R. 1875 – The Mandal family of Karnal District.
52 P. R. 1886 – The Ranas of Manaswal in Hoshiarpur District.
16 P. R. 1890 – The Sikh Sardars of Lodhran, females are entirely excluded.
102 P. R. 1891 – Basal Banias of Jullundur City, in joint estate where property acquired by husband and his brother.
60 P. R. 1895 – Bhandari Khatris of Batala, District Gurdaspur, Under Hindu Law in presence of sons, but if partition by the sons, the Widow gets an equal share, which she holds as a life-estate.
62 P. L. R. 1903 – Khan Khel Swathis of Hazara District.
119 P. R. 1907 – Gurmani Baluchis of Dera Ghazi Khan.
112 P. R. 1912 – Khattars of Tahsil Fatehjang, in presence of sons.
78 P. R. 1913 – Bhatias of Kangarh, Muzaffargarh District.
(16) Two or more widows succeed jointly – rule of survivor-ship.
As a general rule, all widows take in equal shares without regard to their family. When one of them is dead her share descends to the surviving widow or widows.
In the following cases co-widows succeeded jointly: -
22 P. R. 1889.
128 P. R. 1893 – Habib Khel Pathans of Peshawar.
20 P. R. 1895 – Gil Jats of Ludhiana District. Where there are two widows holding a life-estate and one co-widow remarries cannot get her estate in presence of the other widow.
P. L. R. 1911 – Muhammadan Rajputs, Hoshiarpur District. Where a properietor dies, leaving a son and three widows; held, on the death of the son without issue all the three widows were entitled to equal share for life.
A. I. R. 1933 Lah. 69 – Where a person dies leaving two widows and one of them re-marries the whole estate of the deceased passes to the other widow and the mere retention of the re-married widow’s name in the revenue records would not place her in adverse possession of her share qua the co-widow and owing to her intervening between the estate and the reversioner the latter’s rights would not be affected.
Compare 9 W. R. 23 P. C; 111 Mad. H. C. Rep. 424; 59 P. R. 1869.
In the following cases, on the death of one of the co-widows the other took by survivorship –
4 P. R. 1880; 180 P. R. 1882; 25 P. R. 1888.
9 P. R. 1891 (Rev.) – Joint tenancy. Where the two widows were joint tenants of an undivided holding, when one died and the other survived he latter might hold the whole and as long as she lived the proprietors were not entitled to step in and have the tenancy partitioned and absorbed piecemeal.
128 P. R. 1893 – Habib Khel Pathans of Peshwar. Where a man leaves four widows they succeed as a group, and the life-estate of one who never determined her estate goes to the other by survivorship.
15 P. R. 1915 – The survivor of the two widows of a sonless Bhakral Rajput of
=A. I. R. 1914 Lah. 488 Mauza Deir, Gujarkhan Tahsil, Rawalpindi District, is entitled whatever her caste or right as against a co-widow may be, to hold her deceased husband’s property for life, and so long as she lives, no collateral can claim possession of that property.
1921, 2 Lah. 383 - Arab Sayyads of Kharkhauda (Rohtak District). On
=1924, 6 Lah. 117 P. C. the death of the last male owner without issue, the widows succeed to the whole of his estate, for an interest terminable with their lives and with a right of survivorship as between them-selves.
A. I. R. 1924 Lah. 584 - Widows of a childless male proprietor succeed as
=5 Lah. 237 joint tenants and on the death of one the other merely absorbs her share by virtue of her survivorship. There is no succession in such cases and the question of the unchastity of the surviving widow does not arise.
In the absence of custom the re-marriage of a widow causes a forfeiture of her life-interest in her first husband’s estate which then reverts to the nearest heir of her husband. A co-widow in consequence of her remarriage forfeits her right to take the property of the other co-widow by survivorship on the death of the latter. It therefore reverts to the reversioner. An exception to this rule is however recognized among Sikh Jats of the Punjab Province where the widow marries her first husband’s brother in the karewa form, because in that case the re-marriage does not cause forfeiture of her own share (1). In the case of Jats of Ferozepur District, it has been held that a widow in pre-ference to collaterals (2).
But the widow’s right only accrues on the husband’s death, and if it does not accrue then, it cannot accrue later by the death of a subsequent heir.
Sikh Jats of Ferozepur-If her husband had been succeeded by his son and the son dies, the widow who has remarried her husband’s brother cannot succeed in presence of other brothers of the husband (3).
See also 92 P. R. 1869, a case under the Hindu Law, to the same effect.