Reversion to donor's family.
Prior to a Full Bench decision in Sita Ram v. Raja Ram (3) it was held in many cases that on the death, without son, of a khana damad, who succeeds to his father-in-law's estate, the estate passed to his heirs and not to those of the father-in-law (4). The ruling given in Sita Ram v. Raja Ram (3), however, laid. down the general principle that the property would revert to the original owner's faimly, in cases where the daughter s direct descendants, male and female, had died out (5).
See notes on page supra, for details. The custom of khana-damadi has been found to exist among the following tribes:-
138 P. R. 1893- pathans of Isakhel. A Pathan of Isakhel had three sons and one of his Sons went to reside in another village in Isakhel and an other son in Mianwali Tahsil, and there he made a khana-damad and after his widow's death a dispute arose as to the succession to property acquired by him in the Mianwali Tahsil: Held, that the custom of Mianwali Tahsil applied and the plaintiffs (collaterals) had not established a better title than that of the defendant (khana-damad). Held also, that there was nothing to show that the custom of Mianwali Tahsil required a gift to perfect the title of the khana-damad to his father-in-law's land.
107 P. R. 1892- Arains of Zira Tahsil. A khana-damad may be appointed to succeed to the estate of a sonless proprietor, to the exclusion of his brothers and nephews.
A. I. R. 1937 Lah. 110- Arains of Wazirabad Tahsil. Daughter
= 18 Lah. 159 and resident son-in-law are entitled to succeed
=171 I. C. 958 on death of daughter's father without male issue
A. I. R.1933 Lah. l87- By the custom in Gujrat District where a
=141 I. C. 270 father bequeaths property in favour of his daughter making her absolute owner of his property after his death and a appoints the son-in-law as his khana- damad, the daughter acquires an absolute estate to which there is no reversion; and an alienation by her cannot be challenged by another female in the absence of a custom to that effect.
A. I. R. 1933 Lah. 775- Gujrat Muhammadan Jats.
=141 I. C. 606
24 P. R.1879- Varaich Jats. By custom a sonless proprietary is at liberty to take his daughter's husband to live With him and cultivate his land for him and to succeed to his estate after his death.
A. I. R. 1930 Lah. 775- Muhammadan Jats of Kharian Tahsil.
45 P. R. 1917 (P. C.)- Muhammadan Dab Jats. The plaintiffs (collaterals) had failed to discharge the onus laid upon them to establish that they were entitled to succeed in preference to a daughter's son whose father was a khana-damad
69 P. R. 1880- Muhammadan Sahu Jats. There is no custom by which a selection of a son-in-law as heir is rendered invalid or confers on him no rights of succession. See also under the Chapter on " Alienation" under the heading "Transfer by gift."
Note.- The system of khana-damadi is mainly to be found in the district of Gujrat. The reason why in certain districts the institution of khana-damadi does not exist is because "this is mainly due to the fact that gifts direct to daughters are freely al1owed (in districts other than Gujrat), and thus it is unnecessary to create the artificial position occupied by the khana-damad. which is merely a drive by which gifts to daughters and their descendants may be made" (1). Hindu feeling is general1y against the institution of khana-damadi. Held, that the onus of proving that the custom of khana-damad exists among Hindu jats of village Bottar, Tahsil Kharian, district Gujrat, was upon the party who relied on it and that be had failed to prove the existence of the custom. The fact that Muhammadan Jats of Gujrat have the custom of khana-damadi and that the Hindu Jats following general the same customs as Muhammadan Jats, does not necessarily lead to the inference that that there is any general custom of khana-damadi among Hindus in any tahsil of the Gujrat district (2). The institution khana-damadi has not been found to exist among the following tribes:-
22 P. R. 1893- Taoni Rajputs of Mauza Chapar Chari, Kharar Tahsil. The onus was on the resident son-in-law to establish that he had by custom the right to claim the estate to the exclusion of the ordinary heirs, which he failed to do.
16 P. R. 1877- Jats of Amritsar District.
A. I. R. 1933 Lah. 33l- Arains of Gujranwala Tahsil. The custom
= 14 Lah. '4'49 of khana-damadi does not prevail and cones quently a gift of ancestral land by a sonless proprietor in favour of a daughter (whose husband has not and could not under custom be made a resident son-in-law) is not valid as against the donor's collaterals.
A, 1. R. 1937 Lah. Ll10- Arains of Wazirabad Tehsil. If a daughter
=18 Lah. 159 along with her husband lives with her father,
=39P. L. R. 944 the latter living as a khana-damad, till his death, she or he is entitled to inherit if there is no son. The provision in the code of Tribal Custom about a deed of gift or written will by the father is only recommendatory and not mandatory.
134 'P. R. 1893- Awana Gujars, Kharian Tahsil. It was not established by custom that a resident son-in-law was entitled to inherit the estate of his deceased father-in-law.
35 P. R. '1897 Chauhan Gujars, Kharian Tahsil. There is no reason why the estate of a sonless proprietor should not devolve upon several daughters and through them on their descendants.
164 P. R. 19l9- Hindu Jats of village Bottar, Kharian Tahsil There is no custom of khana-damadi among Hindu Jats.
117 P. R. I 892- Mahtamsof village Bhain in the Garshankar T.ibstl.
64 'P. R. 1894:- Ghorewaha Rajputs of Garshankar Tahsil.
54 P. R. 1897- Girths of Kangra Tahsil. When the wife of a resident son-in-law predeceased her father leaves no sons her husband is not entitled succeed to her father after his death.
139 P. R. l892- Manjh Rajputs of Ludhiana District.
77 P. R. 1902- The institution of khana-damadi is not recognized by the tribes inhabiting the Shahpur District.
33 P. R.1893- Bariar Jats, Sialkot Tahsil. A sonless proprietor was not competent in the presence of brother's sons, and without their consent, to make a gift of the whole of his ancestral holding to his brother's daughter, who with her husband had resided in the donor's house, and rendered him services.
28. Subject to the exception hereunder mentioned, in Escheat. the event of. a deceased proprietor dying without heirs his estate or manly escheats to Government. joint estates, where a complete community of interest is maintained , the succession of the proprietary body is usually provided for by the wajib-ul-arz in such cases
(64) Succession of proprietary body and escheat to the Crown.
When there are no heirs, agnatic or cognatic, the question arises whether the village proprietary body should inherit or the land will escheat to the Crown. There is always an ultimate right of escheat to the Crown. Custom may however show the village proprietary body to come in before the Crown in certain cases. In joint estate where a complete community of interest is maintained, the succession of the proprietary body is usually provided for by the Wajib-ul-arz in such cases.
The principles governing the escheat to the state of property left by heirless proprietors are set forth in the Punjab Government Consolidated Circular No.9 and in the Judgment of the Financial Commissioners in Wazira v. Mangal (1). The following propositions were laid down by Sir James Douie in that case:-
(1) The right of Crown to claim escheat rests not on Customary or Hindu Law, though Hindu Law recognizes escheats, but on grounds of general or universal law.
(2) The right can only arise in the absence of relations entitled by law or custom to inherit.
(3) The right of the proprietary body as a whole to succeed in which it exists is primarily based on real or assumed relationship to the holder of the land or to the member of the proprietary body from whom his title was derived.
(4) Such a right should be assumed in the case of homogeneous estate or sub-divisions of estates where the owners are all or nearly all of the same tribe as the last holder of the land or the member of the proprietary body from whom he derived his title.
(5) It should not be assumed in the case of her erogenous estate or sub-divisions of estates, held by persons of different tribes or different gats of the same tribe. The presumption in such cases is that the State has right of escheat.
(6) When the property in the land was originally derived by gift from a member of the tribe of the original proprietary body, the right of that body should be recognized, on failure of the donor's and donee’s lines.
(7) In any case in which the Wajib-ul-arz declares the right of the proprietary body to succeed to the land of heirless owners. Government should set up no claim.
Thus the proprietary body of a village is not entitled to succeed to the estate of a deceased proprietor dying heirless, where it consists of a heterogeneous collection of various tribes none of whom can show any connection or relationship whatsoever with the founder of the village or with any member of the original proprietary body (1).
In the event or a deceased proprietor dying without heirs, his estate would descend to the proprietary body only if the village is a homogeneous one and complete community of interest is maintained. Where no general community of interest between the several landholders in the village has been preserved the estate of a heirless proprietor escheats to the Crown and does not devolve upon the proprietary body (2). It was observed in Labh Singh v. Ahmad Shah (3)-"There is authority in support of the proposition that in villages, where a complete community of interest is maintained, the co-proprietors are entitled to get the estate of a deceased proprietor as against the Crown. But this condition is not satisfied in the present case. The proprietors in this village belong to various tribes and are not united by any community of interest except the obvious fact that they all own land in the same village and are jointly responsible for the payment of the entire land revenue,"
Where the heirless land concerned being situated in a patti of a village owned by an utterly heterogeneous proprietary body, where even the Jot proprietary body was of different gats, both in the village as a whole and in the patti concerned, and the land, having originally been owned by a Jot of a got, of which he was the only representative in the village and. Having been held after his death by his wife's nephews belonging to a village in another district, held, there was no possible claim of succession in the proprietary body of the village or the patti as a whole, or in the Jat proprietors separately, and the land reverts to the Crown (4).
The right of a proprietary body as a whole to succeed in cases in which it exists is primarily based on real or assumed relationship to the holder of the land or to the member of the proprietary body from whom his title was derived.
Held, that there is no custom by which, in the Kangra District, the estate of a childless proprietor escheats (after the death of the widow of such proprietor) to the village community or the owners of the sub-division in which the land is situate (1). It was observed by Chatterji, J. in this case-"It appears to us difficult to lay down a rule of general application in a matter of this kind merely upon a priori grounds; much would depend Upon the facts of each case and the constitution of the village. In a village held on a strictly tribal tenure or in which the community is a compact one, the probability is that heirless land would be taken possession of by the tribesmen or the community, and that strangers would be excluded. It would perhaps be reasonable to presume even in the absence of actual instances that in the part and particularly in unsettled times they were able to assert and enforce this right with the support of public opinion and if necessary by physical force. The right of escheat would have an historical foundation in such communities. But no such inference can be drawn where the proprietors are a heterogeneous body and where possession is essentially the measure of right. Here the right of escheat ought to be affirmatively established by cogent evidence. It would not always be safe to assume the existence of such right merely because under the existing revenue system there is a joint liability for revenue or where such land exists, because there is some common waste land for pasture and other purposes. Further even if it could be held on the strength of the authorities cited by appellants that the custom of escheat set up by them can be presumed to exit in certain parts of the Province it would be impossible to extend the presumption to villages in the hills of Eastern Punjab. Land in the Kangra District is not ordinarily held on tribal principles, and a village community there is something very different from a village community in the plains. In theory a Punjab village is ordinarily a piece of land originally waste acquired by conquest, purchase or other manner and settled upon and brought under cultivation by one or more members of a single tribe or by a number of persons or families belonging to two or more tribes associated for this purpose. The entire proprietary right belongs to the founders or their descendants subject to payment of revenue dues to the ruling power. In the hills before the advent of British rule each Raja was theoretically the landlord of the entire are a included within his raj or principality. He was as it were the manorial lord of the whole country. He was the acknowledged fountain of all rights in the soil and no tenure was complete without investiture from him. This distinction is the key to the proper understanding of the hill tenures.. ...The foregoing extracts show in our opinion the futility of the contention that in the Kangra District by custom the estate of a childless proprietor escheats to the village community or the owners of the subdivision in which the land is situate. There was formerly no ownership, no village community. There could therefore be no escheat to the latter, and if there was any escheat at all it must have been to the Raja or ruling authority. ...Joint liability in payment of revenue or joint rights in waste land will not create a right of escheat."
The conclusion arrived at in Kirpa Ram v. Ude Ram (2) in which all the authorities have been collected and reviewed is that no general rule can be safely laid down that there is any general custom in the Punjab by which there is a right of escheat in favor of the proprietary body of a village on the death of a landowner dying heirless. In each case, therefore, the proprietary body must show that they have got the right in their favour. Held, further that Ambala is a town with a heterogeneous class of inhabitants and the owners of patti kalalan are also a mixed body and that it was difficult to hold that the owners of that patti were such a compact and homogeneous community that the rule of Succession set up by the plaintiffs must be presumed among them in the absence of affirmative evidence on the present record.
Where the village is bhayachara one, and proprietorship belongs to different gots, there is no presumption that land escheats to the proprietary body on the death of an owner without heirs (1).
In village Murtazapur, Karnal District, Pattidars as such have no right of succession to the estate of other pattidars of a different tribe, when the village is heterogeneous (2).
Where a proprietor governed by customary law dies without heirs property will go to the proprietors of the deceased's patti, provided it is owned by one got forming a compact and homogeneous community-a fact from which courts may draw a presumption of common descent- Mauza Faridpur, Jagadhri Tahsil (3).
In case of a heterogeneous village inhabited by various tribes the general rule is that in the event of a proprietor dying without heirs. His estate ordinarily escheats to the Government and if proprietary body claim any right to succeed to his property they are bound to show that this general rule does not apply to them (4)
In case of heterogeneous proprietary body the onus of proving escheat in favour of such body is on them-Garhi Qanun-go,yan, Garhsankar Tahsil (5).
Members of a proprietary body, who are a heterogeneous collection of persons, none of whom can show any connection or relationship what so ever with the founder of the village or with any member of the original proprietary body, have no locus stand to dispute an alleged gift by the last proprietor (6).
According to the Customary Law of the Hissar District (Answer to Question 71) if a mall dies without leaving any heirs his immoveable property devolve, on all the landownera of Thullas or Panas in which the land in dispute is situate (7).In this particular case the decision was in respect of a Brahman family of village Petwar in the Hissar District.
49 P. R. 1886- Mauza Mahtand, Delhi District. There is no escheat to the proprietor body. The onus is on them.
C. A. 24-98 of 1888- Kangra District. Escheat to the vi1lage proprietary body was permitted.
78 P. R. 1888- Mauza Kakar Marza, Ambala District. The fact that thulladars are of the Same got and hold in the Same thulla is a strong presumption that they are ultimate reversionary. It has been held that in Ferozepur District a widow Las simply a life-interest in the property of her husband, and that although the daughter has a preferential right to succeed to the property of her father, where she consents to an alienation of her deceased father's property by her mother, thereby precluding herself from contesting the alienation, the pattida have a right to bring a suit claiming that they are not affected by the alienation on the ground that the alienation is not in favour of collaterals or reversionary, even though the patti is not homogeneous (1).
According to the custom prevailing in the Pathankot Tahsil of Gurdaspur District, as stated in the Riwaj-i-am of 1911-12, when an owner of land dies interstate and without any heirs, the village community has a preferential claim of succession to the land (2). Proprietors of the thulla are entitled to succeed to the estate of a deceased person after the death of his daughter who has left no male descendants. The husband cannot succeed to the property inherited by a female as a daughter (3).
Among the Johal Jats, in village Dhaleke in Ferozepur District according to Question and Answer 63 of Currie's Manual of Customary' Law of Ferozepur District of 1914, upon the death of a person in testate, leaving no heirs, his land, in the absence of any thullas, must go to the owners of patti as if it were shamilat of the patti (4).
Amongst the Gujjars of the Tehsil and District of Ludhiana where the proprietors of the thulla cannot be considered to be a homogeneous set of proprietors and no community of interest can be supposed to exist amongst them, there is no custom giving the proprietors the right to & succeed, in preference to the Crown to the land of anyone out of their body dying without leaving any recognized heir (5).
Where a widow (holding her deceased husband's estate on the customary life-tenure) remarries and thereby forfeits her life interest and there are no relations of her deceased husband, the Crown would take the property by escheat (6). Crown is no party to custom and custom cannot affect its rights and privileges in any way (7).
A mortgagor who was a member of a village proprietary body died leaving no direct heir of his own. The plaintiffs who were of the same tribe and got as the mortgagor sued as members of the village proprietary. Body to redeem lands belonging to the mortgagor. The village was found To be homogeneous and did not consist of a number of proprietors of different tribes, religions and castes. The mortgages, though distantly related to the mortgagor, were not proprietors in the village. Held, that the mortgages had no right to succeed and that the plaintiffs as members of the proprietary body, were entitled to redeem (1).
(66) Rules for division when escheat to the village proprietary body exists.
Where the proprietary body does succeed on the extinction of a line, the property goes to all proprietors in the thulla or Patti of one tribe (2). Where land is in a thulla within a Patti, and the thulladars are in possession, the pattidars have no right as against the thulladars (3). When there are no pattis or other sub-divisions, the land will escheat to the proprietary body as a whole (4).
In villages where the adna maliks are the real proprietors, the ala maliks being merely taluqdars receiving a certain percentage on the revenue, the latter do not succeed to the adna malkiat when the line of the ala malik has become extinct (5).
There are two ways in which the classes of ala maliks and adna maliks are created in a village. First, where the ala maliks so called are mere taluqdars whose ancestors have been farmers of revenue or conquerors who have been content to leave all the management, etc. of the land to the conquered peasantry and to take quit-rents. Secondly, where the ala maliks, originally the sole proprietors of the soil of the village, have called in outsiders and settled them on some or all of the lands. An ala malik belonging to the latter category usually levies a customary rent from the person who actually occupies the land, and it is only in cases of this class that an ala malik is entitled to the right of reversion on the death of the adna malik without heirs, and in no other case. A taluqdar who levies no dues from the persons who actually occupied the land and whose connection with the village is confined to his ownership of a small holding in respect of which he pays no revenue, whether he is called taluqdar or ala malik, does not succeed to the land when the line of the adna malik, who was in occupation there of becomes extinct (6).
In 54 P. R. 1868 the contest was between proprietors of the thullah in which the land was situated and the proprietors of the Patti. The former succeeded because they were liable for the Government revenue with the deceased.
In Mauza Mauaabad, Tahsil Moga, Ferozepur District, the ala maliks were shown as entitled only to the 5 per cent on the revenue, as taluqdar and on adna malik's line dying out it did not revert to ala maliks, but to collaterals of the adna maliks. There was a strong presumption, considering the history of the village, that the land of an adna malik would, for default of nearer heirs, become shamilat of the Patti, and be divided amongst the pattidars in the adna-maliks (1).
(67) Daughters versus the village proprietary body.
Daughters exc1ude the village proprietary body in succession.
A. I. R. 1949 Best Punjab 275- Where a Jat proprietor of Rohtak
=51 P. L. R.269 District dies leaving behind a widow and some landed ancestral property, on the death of the widow, the daughters of a brother of the deceased proprietor are entitled to succeed to the estate in preference to the members of the proprietary body, where the community is heterogeneous.
31 P. R. 1867- Muhammadans of Jullundur. Daughters succeed in ' preference to members of deceased's got, not other-wise related, who are merely the general proprietary body.
136 P. W. R.1908— Agriculturists of Hoshiarpur District. A daughter excludes the village proprietary body.
11 P. R. 1911.- Jats of Mauza Kharindwa, Thanesar. Pattidars have no right to exclude daughters.
(68) Sisters versus the village proprietary body.
Sisters exclude the village proprietary body in succession. In the following cases the sister excluded the proprietary body-
136 P. R; 1884- Gujars of Mauza Sarhana, Tahsil Rupar, Ambala District.
28 P. R. 1904- Jats of Mauza Rajpur, Amba1a District, the vil1age being heterogeneous and bhayachara.
90 P. R. 1915- Sials, Jhang District.
85 P. R. 1916- Jats of Mauza Garhi Qanungoyan, Tahsil Gar-shankar, the village being heterogeneous.
65 P. R. 1918- The onus is on a sister or a sister's son to prove their right of succession as against near and possibly even remote collaterals, but in the absence of any agnatic heirs their right to succeed appears to be preferable to the rights of the proprietary body or Government, especially in villages which are not homogeneous and are compared, as Mauza Diyowal (in Shahpur District) is, of proprietors belonging to different religions, different castes and different tribes.
1919 1 Lah. L. J. 46- ln the absence of collaterals the proprietors of the thulla, in which the land of the deceased is situated, do not exclude his sister.
I. L. R. 1 Lah. 554— Brahmins of Tahsil Kharian following Hindu Law. Father's sister's sons exclude Rajput-village proprietary body.
A. I. R. 1927 Lah. 255- Both under custom as well as under Hindu
= 100 I. C. 1917 Law the sister of a deceased proprietor would come in before the proprietary body.
In the event of a deceased proprietor dying without heirs, his estate would descend to the proprietary body only if the village is a homogeneous one and complete community of interest is maintained. Where no general community of interest between the several landholders in the village has been preserved the estate of a heirless proprietor escheats to the Crown and does not devolve upon the proprietary body.
(69) Other cognates versus the village proprietary body.
52 P. L. R. 97 - Among the agricultural tribes of the Punjab such as Jats of Ferozepur District generally in the absence of all agnate of a childless proprietor, any cognate, whether male or female, however distantly related to him, is entitled to succeed to his property in preference to a stranger. A person related to the proprietor through two females is included inthe term 'cognate'.
136 P. R. 1884- Gujars of Mauza Sarhana, Tahsil Rupar. Female cousins excluded the village body. Female relatives are preferable to mere strangers or to persons whose connection is the result of legal and social institutions only.
178 P. R. 1888- M.auza Khai, Ferozepur District. A heterogeneous village body not entitled to succeed in presence of descendants of deceased's paternal aunt.
141 P. R. 1893- Exogamous Hindu Jats of Mauza Musapur, .Tahsil " Jullundur. Uncle's daughter's Son from other village cannot dispossess fat maliks of a different got who were original donors in possession. The onus of showing the right is On the person out of possession, but had the uncle's daughter's son been in possession it would have been on the proprietary body to show that they had the right to oust.
77 P. R. 1896- Ambala Town. Thulladars claimed to succeed to a widow as against her brother's son who was in possession under a gift. The village was heterogeneous. The thulladars failed.
95 P. R. 1905- Girths of Tika Bonehr. Mauza Baldhar, Kangra. A sister's son who had rendered services excluded the heterogeneous body of the proprietors of the tika.
63 P. R, 1908- Direct descendants of a daughter, and daughter's son of an ascendant of the last male owner were entitled to exclude the heterogeneous proprietary body, in accordance with the recognized Principles of customary law.
137 P. R. 1908- Village Balana, Karnal District. The deceased's paternal aunt's son excluded the proprietary body of the pana village heterogeneous and claimants of another got.
66 P. W. R. 1909- Where the Riwaj-i-am provided that the proprietors of the patti would succeed a la-waris held, it would be an unwarrantable extension of the agnatic theory to allow the proprietors in a bhayachara village to succeed in presence of deceased's wife's first cousin once removed, who was in possession and a member of the proprietary body.
3 P. R. 1914- In a heterogeneous village, the brother's son of a widow in possession ousts the pattidars.
24 P. R. 1917- Jats of Mauza Kheri Gangan, Hissar Distric Sister's son succeeds in preference to thulladars.
128 P. R. 1917- Rajputs, Ludhiana District. General rule is that in .the absence of all agnates any cognate, how-ever distantly related to deceased, excludes village proprietary body.
A. I. R.. 1940 Lah. 416- In the Punjab, followed in A.I.R. 1948 Lah 113, in the absence of all agnates of a childless proprietor, a cognate, however distantly related to him, is entitled to succeed to his property in preference to a stranger.
A .I. R. 1948 Lah. 113- A son adopted under custom is not such a cognate as such an adoption creates only a personal relationship between the adoptor and the adoptee and does not make the latter a descendant of any of the ancestors of the former.
72 P. R. 1907- No custom proved by which a sister's son is entitled among Thakur Rajputs in Dadasiba Jagir, Kangra District, to inherit his maternal uncle's property in preference to the Jagirdar ala malik.
See also 141 P. R. 1893 and 61 P. R.1894.
52 P. L. R. 143- In Sonepat Tehsil, on the death of a proprietor leaving no heirs, the estate will pass to the whole proprietary body of the village whether it is a homogeneous or heterogeneous village.
(70) The right of' the proprietary body to evict stranger in possession of a deceased proprietor's land.
16 P. R. 1912- The entry in the Riwaj-i-am of Ludhiana District befit to the elect that in the event of a proprietor dying Without leaving any blood-relations, the lands would go first to the thulladars, then to the malikan-i-patti and thereafter to the proprietary body of the village, held, that even if the village was heterogeneous, the defendants who had obtained mutations in their favour as pattidars in conformity with the rule of custom laid down in the Riwaj-i-am, had failed to discharge the onus lying upon them of proving that the plaintiff, also a pattidar, had not an equal right of succession, because he belonged to a different tribe or because he was a proprietor by purchase and his name did not appear as a proprietor in the Shajra Nasab prepared at the settlement.
18 P. L. R. 1913- Mauza Bishan Garh, Ambala District. Descendants of the original
=18 I. C. 132 founders and of the same got, who were co-sharers in the shamilat, had such a community of interest between themselves and the deceased proprietor dying without heirs as to entitle them to oust a trespasser.
Both these cases were distinguished in Muhammad Akbar v. Daramsala Baba Sidqi Dass (A. I. R. 1927 Lah. 613=103 I. C. 274).
142 P. L. R. 1913- When Jats take possession of an heirless proprietor's estate of their own got, the general proprietary body of the village is neither en- titled to take any share without proving that they are equally entitled, nor are they competent to oust the persons in possession without showing their own superior right.
See also 141 P. R. 1893.