lives; and in the latter’s absence, to collaterals within five degrees, among whom the right of representation exists, all heirs sharng equally by degrees. In the absence of collaterals, within five degrees, the daughters or their offspring succeed, and, in default of the daughters and their offspring, the sisters and their offspring, and, failing them, the collaterals beyond five degrees. In some cases the daughters, have succeeded partly or wholly to their deceased father’s property in the presence of the collaterals within five degrees.
Kot Adu Tahsil.
" Jats. -Succession in the first place goes to the sons and their direct lineal descendants, and, failing them, to the widows for their lives; and, if there are no widows, to the daughters and their offspring. In cases where there are daughters or granddaughters, they share' equally. If there are no daughters and grand-daughters, the succession goes to the sisters and their offspring, and, Failing them, to the collaterals, all heirs sharing equally by degrees.
Some say that they follow Mohammedan Law."
"Biloches-Vide the Jats of Kot Adu Tahsil, with the addition that in certain cases widows are given a part of the property when the estates are large.
Pathans. - Vide the answer given by the Jats of Kot Adu Tahsil
Sayyads. -Succession in the first place goes to the sons and their direct male lineal descendants, and failing them, to the widows for their lives; and in the latter's absence, to the daughters and their offspring. In cases where there are granddaughters they share equally with the daughters. If there are no daughters or granddaughters, succession goes to the sisters and their offspring. In some cases the sisters and their offspring were liven a part of the property only and in some cases they got nothing.
Mohammedan Law is said to be followed by some families.
Qureihis.-Succession in the first place goes to the sons and their direct lineal descendants, and failing them, to the widows for their lives and in the latter's absence, to their daughters and their offspring. In cases where there are granddaughters, they share equally with the daughters.
Failing daughters and granddaughters or their offspring, succession is in favor of the sisters and their offspring.
Hindus. -Succession in the first place goes to the sons and their direct male lineal descendants, and failing them to the widows for their lives; and in the latter's absence, to the collaterals within five degrees among whom the right of representation exists, all heirs sharing equally by degrees. In default of such collaterals, of the daughters, and if there are no daughters but If there are their offspring, the succession goes to the latter and failing them to the sisters and their offspring. When the succession devolves upon the daughters, the daughters and the grand-daughter have equal Rights; as, for instance, if a deceased left behind him one daughter and two grand-daughters from one son, the daughter will receive half the property and the two granddaughters the other half.
There had also been some cases where in the daughter's sisters and their offspring got preference over the collaterals,"
(a) Collaterals exclude daughters.
A.I. R. 1926 Lah. 210- Aroras of Muzaffargarh Town. Collaterals
=7 Lah. 124 exclude the daughters from succession to the
=95 I. C. 337 ancestral properties of the deceased.
25 P. R. 1895- Ganga Jats. By custom a daughter who has married outside her own khandan loses her right to succeed to her father's estate.
(b) Daughter excludes collaterals.
23 I. C. 535- Muhammadan Jats of Sanawan Tahsil. Self-acquired
=56 P. L. R. 1914 property. The rights of females are generally recognized among Jats and Pathans.
73 P. R. 1896- Dhal Khatris. Acquired estate. Daughter’s exclude col1atera1s.
* Answer to Question No. 56. -
"In the absence of male lineal descendants an unmarried daughter succeeds. This "is the ordinary rule; but Kaka Khels and Sayyads of Naushera centre state that she succeeds concurrently with a widow or widows."
**Answer to Question No. 57. -
"There is no distinction of property into moveable and immoveable, ancestral and acquired, with reference to the title of daughter to inherit. In cases where they are the hairs they inherit all kinds of property."
(a) Collaterals exclude daughters.
44 P. R. 1896- Razzar Pathans. Unmarried daughter is entitled to maintenance till marriage. She does not succeeded to any landed property in the presence of mal kindred of her Father.
18 P. R. 1894- Afghans of Mauza Ali Beg, Naushera Tahsil. Ancestral estate. No custom by which the ancestral estate devolves upon a widowed married daughter and after her death upon her married daughter for life. And there is no custom also by which an unmarried daughter succeeds her. Mother and excludes both collateral kinsmen and also a married granddaughter and her issue and a deceased grandson's daughter.
31 P. R. 1893- Awans of Doaba, Daudzai Tahsil. Daughter is entitled to maintenance only in the presence of near male collaterals.
66 P. R. 1889- Pathan agriculturists. Daughters excluded by collaterals from succession.
Daughter excludes collaterals.
67 P. R. 1888- Khatris of Peshawar City. By custom a daughter and her son succeed to the exclusion of the nephew of the last male owner. "
9 P. R. 1884- Hindu Banias of Peshawar City. Ancestral house. Daughters are preferred to Nephews.
* Answer to question No. 11. -
"The replies of all tribes are unanimous that in the presence of male issue a daughter or her issue cannot succeed to any portion of her father's property. The custom is well established in this district, but reference should be made to Question 19, where the rights of daughters unmarried or vowed to celibacy, are given.
**. Answer to Question No. 12. –
"All tribes reply as at last Settlement that collaterals, Sharikani-jadi, succeed to the exclusion of married daughters. The custom is well established. Examples without number of instances in which collaterals excluded married daughters from the inheritance could be given. Every Mutation register is full of such cases. Below are given a number of instances in which the Custom was not followed. In many of these it will be observed that married daughters were
Allowed to participate in the inheritance only to a limited extent. These instances also lend Support to the custom as alleged. In the other- cases succession was influenced by considerations other than the customary rule of succession. Instances given under Question 19 are also in point."
. *** Answer to Question No. 13. -
"As at last settlement the replies to this question are various and arbitrary; they lead in general to the conclusion that those tribes which maintain that there is a limit to the succession of collaterals in presence of female issue are merely guided by rules of general equity and not by
Custom, properly so called, on this point can only be said to obtain among those tribes which declare, that all collaterals have title to succeed to property in preference to female issue, however remote their connection may be.
All Hindus all hill tribes and the Gujjars of Rawalpindi give preference in secession to all collaterals who can prove their connection With the deceased owner. The Gakhars of Kahuta agree with their neighbors, the hill clans, though. Their fellow-tribesmen .in the plains Maintain that collaterals must be within four degrees of relationship.
The Gujars of Gujar Khan name seven degrees as the limit. Imposed by custom and the Rajputs of the same Tahsil declare that their custom is the same as the Gujars.
All other tribes say that collaterals can succeed only if within four degrees of relationship, and it may be; taken as a general Working principle that very remote relatives are not entitled. To. Oust married daughters from the succession. In many cases the principle is arrived at by an Inverse or negative process, examples being quoted in which daughters successfully resisted the attempts of remote collaterals to supplant them.
* Answer to Question No. 19. –
"The hill tribes all reply that vows of celibacy are not customary among them and that unmarried daughters are not entitled to share in the succession with sons. The Janjua of Kahuta say that women who are Musalla-Nashin share equally with sons, but cannot quote any. Instances of women vowed to celibacy.
All Hindus state that unmarried daughters never share in the succession with sons or even in presence of collaterals. The tribes of the plains generally agree that, while unmarried daughters do not share in the succession with sons, those who are under a vow of celibacy are Treated as sons in the partition of the estate.
The Gakhars of Gujar Khan, however, state that among them Musalla-Nashins, and unmarried daughters share with their brothers, but that the latter forfeit their shares on marriage. Rajputs; Awans and Mughals of Gujar Khan state that no daughter is entitled to share in presence of sons. They thus disagree with their fellow-tribesmen in the other tahsils and the custom as stated by them must be considered open to question, as no examples are produced in support of their assertion."
(a) Collatera1s exclude daughters.
56 P. R. 1909-- Brahmins of Rawal, Rawalpindi Tahsil. Governed by Customary Law. Near agnates of the last male owner exclude daughters of the last male owner.
115 P. R. 1892- Jhiwar Awans of Rawalpindi Town. Acquired estate (a water-mill). By custom a married daughter and her son are not entitled to exclude a brother and nephews in succession.
(b) Daughter excludes collaterals.
I P. R. 19l0- Brahmins of Mandsiala, Gujar Khan Tahsil. Governed
=4 I. C. 917 by Hindu Law. Hence a daughter cannot be excluded from succession to brother’s sons.
16 P. R. 1885- Golras of Mauza Jodh, Rawalpindi Tahsil. A daughter married to a distant agnate succeeds to her father's estate to the exclusion of her father's distant collaterals.
** Answer to Question No 56. -
"I. All tribes throughout except pathans outside Guriani zail and Sheikhs of Jhajjar say that in no circumstances has the daughter of her descendants a right to inherit.
Note. -No doubt it is common enough both now-a-days and further back in the pedigree, when such an inheritance has often been the source of a separate panah or thulah to find instances of a sister's or daughter's son inheriting but as Sir J. Wilson point out in Gurgaon it is probably by adoption send always by the consent of the agnatic heirs. And even when such a person has inherited it is very common to find that he sold out and left the village, which did not welcome him. "Bhanje ki aulad" is a frequent explanation of sales.
II. The Pathans outside Guriani zail and Sheikhs of Jhajjar say that in the absence of widows, son's and son's descendants, daughters. Inherit; in preference, that is, to brothers, and their descendants, and agliatic cousins and their descendants.
III. Though of Gohana agree with the majority Risaldar- Major Ghulam Mustapha Khan of Nagar supported by a few others alleges a custom in that village, not admitted by most residents, that daughters inherit in the absence of sons and their descendants. The Other residents admit this custom used to exist at repudiate it now and refer, to civil appeal No. 235 of 1904, decided on 18th October 1904, (original suit No. 39 of 1903). In this case Mr. Clifford, Divisional Judge, ruled that although daughters or their issue used in some cases to inherit the custom had been extinct since 1848.
Khan Bahadur wazir Muhammad Khan says that two of his real uncles (father's brothers) Ghulam Qadir Khan and Najabat Ali Khan had no sons, but respectively four and one daughters. These girls inherited the whole of their father’s property without dispute. This was 30 and more years ago. It does not follow, that had there been a dispute the Court would have upheld this disposition."
*Answer to Question No. 57. –
“All these tribes who Deny. The right of daughters to inherit in Section 56, say that there is no distinction; but that the father or brother can give the daughter or sister as much of the moveable property (ancestral or acquired) as he may desire to do.”
A. I. R. 1938 Lah. 562- In Rohtak District, a daughter has no right
=40 P. L. R. 937 to succeed to her father's landed property. Whether ancestral or self-acquired.
A. I. R. 1939 Lah. 20- Hindu Jats of Rohtak District, a daughter;has no
= 179 I. C. 824 right to inherit and is therefore not heir
41 P. L. R. 11.
A. I. R. 1939 Lah. 358- Gaur Brahmans of Sonepat Tahsil;
= 184 I. C. 648 (1) collaterals in the fourth degree have
= 41 P. L. R. 822 preferential right to succession against' daughters
Daughters exclude collaterals.
A.I. R. 1935 Lah. 590- Gaur Brahmins of Kharkhauda. Non- ancestral property. Daughter excludes collaterals of 8th degree.
62 I. C. 740- Salar Sayyads of Kharkhauda. If there is no son
=47 P. L. R. 1921 then a daughter succeeds by right of re- presentation just as if she were a son and takes the share which her father would have taken had he been alive.
41 P. R. 1901- Sheikhs of Badli, Jhajjar Tahsil. In the absence
=49 P. L. R. 1901 . of custom to the contrary the daughters succeed In preference to collateral such as the defendants.
** Answer to Question Nan. 16. -Section V.
A married daughter in no case inherits her father's estate or any share in it. An unmarried daughter succeeds to no share in presence of agnate descendants of the deceased, or of her own mother; but if there be no agnate descendants and no sonless widow, the unmarried daughters succeed in equal shares to the whole of their father's property, moveable and immoveable, till their marriage, when it reverts to the agnate heirs. If there be a widow and daughters of another wife who has died, the unmarried daughters of the deceased wife succeed to their mother's share till their marriage.
In some families of Tiwanas and Sayyads a daughter can in' no case Exception. inherit, but is entitled only to maintenance.
If the deceased was living jointly with his, agnate heirs, the daughter inherits no share of the property; she is entitled only to maintenance. If the deceased was living separate, and leaves no male lineal descendants or widow, the unmarried daughters succeed under guardianship till their marriage to the whole of the moveable property, and if there be no male lineal descendants of the deceased's father's father, to the whole of the immoveable property also otherwise the immoveable property goes to the aglnatic heirs. The married daughter does not succeed even to the moveable property in presence of agnate heirs of the deceased.
Note. -Some Khatris of Bhera say that the married daughter succeeds to the acquired property of the deceased in preference even to his brother, but the instances they give seem to be cases of gifts.
Among the Musalmans numerous instances are given of an unmarried daughter having succeeded to the whole of her father's property in preference to his brother agnate nephews, and the custom is almost universal in this district. His right however, ceases on her marriage, and the estate then reverts to the agnates. All the unmarried daughters share the estate equally.
*Answer to Question No. 17. -Section V.
As regards the right of the daughter to inherit, no distinction is made between the moveable and immoveable, ancestral and acquired property of the father. If she inherits at all she takes the whole estate.
For the answer of the Hindus see Answer 16.
(a)Col1aterals exclude daughters.
A. I. R. 1937 Lah. 683- Amongst all the Musalman tribes, including
= 39 P. L. R.566 Tullas of the Shahpur District, married daughter
= 172 J. C. 158 does not inherit their father's estate (ancestries self-acquired) under any circumstances
A.I. R. 1936 Lah. 205- Ranjhas of Bhalwal Tahsil. Self-acquired property. Married daughters not preferred to collaterals of the 3rd degree.
A. I. R. 1930 Lah. 232- Baloches. Self-acquired land. Daughters are not-entitled to a preferential right to inherit as compared to the collaterals unless such right of the daughters is specifically proved.
A. I. R. 1925 Lah. 482- Sayyads. Married daughters do not succeed to the immovable estate of their father to the exclusion of collaterals even though the common ancestor did not hold possession of the estate.
81 P. R. 1879- Awans of Mauza Dehwal, Khushab Tahsil. By custom unmarried daughters succeed to their father's immoveable estate and hold it till their marriage. When they are married they case to have any interest in the estate of their father and it passes to the collaterals in the male line.
(b) Daughters exclude collaterals.
A I. R. 1938 Lah. 309- Awans of the Khushab Tahsil, collaterals
= 177 I. C. 775 are not entitled to succeed to the non- ancestral
=40 P. L. R. 29 property in preference to the daughter.
A. I. R. 1937 Lah. 641- Awans. A married daughter is a preferential heir
= 39 P. L. R 276 to the self-acquired property of her father
= 172 I. C. 963 against the collaterals of the 5th degree.
A. I. R. 1937 Lah. 640- Awans. Daughter- succeeds to the non ancestral property or a son less proprietor in preference to collaterals.
A.I. R. 1936 Lah. 809- Mikans tribe and the Muhammadan land-holders of the district. Collaterals are-excluded by married daughters in succession to the non-ancestral property of a sonless proprietor.
A. I. R. 1934 Lah. 404- Awans of Mauza Mardwal, Tahsil
= 15 Lah. 73 Khushab. Self-acquired property.
= 150 I. C. 786 Daughters exclude collaterals of the 5th degree. Presumption of Riwaji- am held to be rebutted.
A. I. R. 1932 Lah. 157- Musa1man tribes (Awans), Tahsil Khushab.
= 13 Lah.276 Collaterals (of the 6th degree) of the
=135 I. C. 769 last male holder have no locus stand to contest the gift of non-ancestral property by his widow to her daughters. As regards ancestral property also, more usually the fifth degree is found to be customary limit.
I. L. R. 1 Lah. 284- Sipras of Miana Hazara, Bhera Tehsil. Self.
=54 I. C. 419 acquired estate. Daughters are preferred to collaterals. A gift -by a widow to her daughter of self-acquired estate of her husband stands good and as to ancestral estate it does not bind the collaterals "In the case of self-acquired estate the general custom is that daughters are preferred to collaterals.
15 P. R. 1909- Muhammadan parachas of Bhera City.
= 1 I. C. 453 Daughters are entitled to succeed to an urban estate of their father to the exclusion of his male collaterals.
I. R. 1933 Lah. 801- Muhammadans (Sayyads or Sheikhs). Ancestral land. Daughter is a preferential heir to collaterals and reversioners.
A. I. R. 1943 Lah. 154- Arains of village Moranwala in tehsil
=209 I. C. 454 Shahdara, daughters succeed to the
=45 P. L. R. 185. ancestral property of their father in preference to his brother's sons.
*Answer to Question No. 47.-
"In the absence of male lineal descendants and of widows unmarried daughters take possession of their father's property till marriage but not subsequently.
Married daughters do not inherit in the presence of collaterals. This is the general rule, but under the influence of judicial decisions some people assert that daughters succeed in preference to collaterals of the 5th or more remote degrees. Mughals assert that agnates of the 4th degree are excluded by daughters.
Note.-There are numerous inheritance of daughters keeping possession of their father's land till marriages and it is not necessary to refer to them as the custom is very well established and there is no dissentient."
(a) Collaterals exclude daughters. -
A. I. R. 1937 Lah. 451 [F. B.]-Jats. Daughters cannot succeed to their father's self-acquired or other property in preference to male collaterals.
A. I. R. 1936 Lah. 403- Dillu Jats. Married daughters cannot
-164 I. C. 796 inherit in the presence of collaterals (11th degree) regarding landed property.
48 P. R. 1889- Hindu Varaichs of Pasrur Tehsil. Collaterals exclude daughters.
(b) Daughters exclude collaterals.
= 198 I. C. 708 are entitled to succeed to non. ancestral
= 43 P. L. R. 665 property of a sonless proprietor in preference to his collaterals.
A. I. R. 1942 Lah. 1 [P.B.]- 'Bajwa Jats of Sialkot District. Daughter
-198 I. C. 340 have a preferential right to
=43 P. L. R. 665 succeed to the non-ancestral property as against collaterals of the tenth degree.
A. I. R. 1936 Lah. 346- Sayyads of Sialkot District. Self-acquired
16 I. C. 42 property. Daughters of a sonless male proprietor succeed to his self- acquired .property in preference to the collaterals.
A. I. R. 1936 Lah. 339- Kahlon Jats. Self-acquired property.
= 16 Lah. 985 Daughters exclude collaterals from
= 16 I. C. 24 succession.
A. I. R. 1935 Lah. 370- Hundal Jats. Self-acquired property. Daughters exclude near male collaterals. ;
A. I. R. 1935 Lah. 106- Bajwa Jats. Self-acquired property.
= 16 Lah. 616 Daughter succeeds in preference to near.
-158 I. C. 194 collaterals.
A. I. R. 1930 Lah. 971- Arains. Self-acquired estate. Daughter.
-11 I.e. 415 excludes collaterals.
A. I. R. 1930 Lah. 724- Jats. Self-acquired property. Daughter
= 125 I. C. 609 is entitled to inherit in preference to his collaterals in the second degree.
A. I. R. 1929 Lah. 465- Self-acquired property. Married daughters
= 10 Lah 489 of the Sialkot District inherit their father's
= 118 I. C. 398 estate even in the presence of collaterals.
A. I. R.1924 Lah. 537- Kalwan Jats of Mauza Wazirpur Raya ,
= 75 I. C. 855 Tehsil. A daughter is not excluded by a collateral (6th degree).
I. R. 1923 Lah 401-Jats of village Begowala. Self-acquired estate. Daughters exclude collaterals from succession.
As has already been noticed on page 181, entries in a Riwaj-i-am or a Wajib-ul-arz which do not specifically purport to mention non-ancestral property. must be taken to refer to ancestral property only. In he absence of any indication to the contrary, entries in the Riwaj-i-am should be taken to refer to ancestral property.
See notes on pages 259 and 260.
A. I. R. 1923 Lah. 175- Among Sheikh converts from Bahal Khatris
-72 I. C. 845 sons exclude daughters not only in respect of father's estate but also of maternal estate; and brothers exclude sisters from succeeding to a childless brother. Claim was disallowed in the following cases in the presence of male agnates:-
22 P. R. 1893- Taoni Rajputs, Tehsil Kharar. Ambala District, in the presence of a nephew.
62 P. R. 1902- Non-agricu1tural Aroras of Kasur. But was allowed in
87 P. R. 1879- Tarkhans of Lahore.
.175 P. R. 1883- Qureshis of Wazirabad. '
116 P. R. 1892 - Kalru Jats of Multan.
45 P. R. 1908- Qureshis of Gujar Khan, in presence of father brother .
Where there is a widow, a daughter does not ordinarily get a the claim was disallowed in-
38 P. R. 1883- Mujawars, Data Ganj Bakhsh, Lahore.
90 P. R. 1894- Khattars of Rawalpindi.
79 P. R. 1912- Qureshis of Kasba Thura, Gurgaon. the claim was allowed in-
124 P. R. 1908- Non- agricultural Awans, Ludhiana City, under Mohammedan Law.
113 P. R.1912- Sheikh artisans of Delhi City.
In the presence of a mother a daughter gets a share under Mohammedan Law.
47 P. R. 1900- Tarkhans of Multan City.
As against collaterals residing in other villages, a daughter invariably excludes the collaterals in succession to self-acquired property, i.e., property lot ancestral qua the collaterals. But as regards the ancestral property he collaterals generally would have the same rights as if he lived in the village of the deceased.
64 P. R. 1893- Girths of Kangra. A migrated from his ancestral village and acquired land elsewhere. Held, that the daughter excluded collaterals of the ancestral village.
18 P. R. 1896- Rawats of Hoshiarpur District. Where in a case of disputed 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 resided 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 the daughter could not be ousted by the collaterals, the property being non-ancestral.
73 P. R. 1896- Dhals of Inayatpur, Muzaffargarh. Near collaterals excluded in presence of daughter, property being self-acquired in another village. Where Collaterals claim to. succeed in. preference to daughters to ; property acquired .by deceased in another village, they can only claim by virtue of collimate of descent, and experience shows that community of descent alone creates no presumption in favor of collaterals.
103 P. R. 1900- Tehsil of Pachnand, Shahpur. Self-acquired land in another village; daughter preferred to collaterals.
2 P. R. 1909- Hindu Rajputs of Kangra District. The exclusion of daughters in favour of collaterals being generally confined to landed property derived from a common ancestor and there being further, the additional circumstance in this case, that the property in suit was not even situate in the ancestral village, the Indus was on the collaterals to prove that they were entitled to exclude daughters from succession to such property and that was not discharged.
139 P. W. R. 19l0- Hindu Jats, Shajwal, Ludhiana District. A daughter excludes collaterals living in and owning land in another village, in respect to self-acquired property and houses of her father.