As a general rule, in the presence of sons or other male lineal descendants, the widow gets nothing but maintenance. Even a childless widow to the presence of children of another widow ordinarily gets only maintenance, though in certain cases she may be allowed her share.
“A sonless widow in the presence of the sons is always entitled to maintenance, and her claim to a son’s share may be recognized” (1).
“If a man has more than one wife but a son or sons by only one of them, the childless widows are generally each for her life allotted a share equal to that of a son. The other widows and daughters only get maintenance. The Mughals of Ajnala, however, state that widow is never such cases allotted a share.
Brahmins have in some cases been held to follow the above customary law in preference to Hindu Law. In other cases the reverse decision has been given – vide P. R. 59 of 1908, 1 and 63 of 1910” (2).
“The majority of tribes agreed at last Settlement that the widow will share for life equally with her sons but without power of alienation. The majority is now in favour of allowing her maintenance only, a portion of the property beings specially set apart for this purpose. Examples are quoted in favour of both theories, and courts will have to consider the circumstances of each case in the absence of any well-established custom on this point” (3).
If there be two widows, one with issue and the other barren, “the replies of all tribes in this district are to the effect that a barren widow is entitled only to maintenance, but the numerous examples collected show that among all tribes barren widows not infrequently get a share in the property of their husbands.
“They have, of course, no power of alienation over such land, and it is not of great importance to determine the doubtful question of custom, for it would seem to be generally admitted that barren widows have a claim to maintenance for life or till marriage out of their widows have a claim to maintenance for life or till marriage out of their husband’s property. It is immaterial therefore whether a share be entered in their names or a portion of the land be set apart for their maintenance.
“There appears to be no instance of a barren widow establishing her title to a share of the inheritance by an appeal to the Courts. The custom, as stated by the tribes, has therefore the support of legal opinion and may be considered established for practical purposes” (4).
112 P. R. 1912 – A widow not take a share of the inheritance with the son of the deceased. She is only entitled to maintenance in the share of setting aside certain estate for her.
A. I. R. 1924 Lah. 265–A step-mother holding a portion of her deceased husbands = 69 I. C. 331 estate in her name during the life-time of her step-son who holds the other portion should be considered as holding in lieu of maintenance.
Dera Ghazi Khan District.
“All Muhammadan tribes with the exception of Kaisranis and Khosas in Sanghar, Khosas in Dera, Gurchannis in Dera, Gurchannis in Jampur, and all Biluches in Rajanpur, profess to be governed by the provisions of the Muhammadan Law, under which widows, daughters, and other relatives are entitled to specified share of the property of the deceased. The preference accorded by the Legharis and Lunds (Sori and Tibbi) to the provisions of Muhammadan Law in matters of inheritance is however of very recent date, and there are extremely few instances among them of the observance of that law.
With the exception of the Khetran, Sayyad, Qureshi and Pathan tribes, in the district, the other Muhammadan tribes, including the Jats, not specifically distinguished above, frequently overlook the widow’s claim, when there are sons.
The Khosras and Kaisranis and Gurchannis say that a widow and daughter are only entitled to maintenance and the property is divided among collaterals. The first two tribes, however, add that even if the widow be given a life-interest she can in no case alienate her late husband’s property. The Rajanpur Biluches state that the widow has only a life-estate in her husband’s property, and cannot alienate it without lawful necessity. The collaterals succeed to the property in their ancestral shares. The widow of a sonless Hindu takes a life-interest in the estate. The Sanghar Hindus say that she does not get any portion of the immoveable property, but is entitled to maintenance out of the immoveable property. These are instances, however, to show that in Sanghar too the general custom of the Hindus of the district is follow” (2).
Dera Ismail Khan District.
A widow in presence of the sons, whether they be her own issue or of a co-widow, is entitled to maintenance only (2).
“All Musalmans –
If there be no lineal male descendant the widow succeeds to a life-interest in the estate or until her re-marriage.
The widow is entitled to maintenance only, if the deceased lived jointly with his brothers otherwise she is entitled to a life-interest in the whole estate” (3).
“Male lineal descendants of the deceased succeed in the first instances, then the widow, and then usually the collaterals (for the case of daughters see answer to Question 48 infra).
The Mahrajiki Siddhus, however, have a special custom by which all widows, irrespective of the fact that they are sonless or no and irrespective of the number of widows, are given a share equal to that of a son between them.
Where there are more than one widow and one or more are sonless, there is considerable diversity of opinion and practice. Among the Hindu tribes the following say that –
(i) a sonless widow obtains a son’s share if the property is small, but if the estate is a large one, is only entitled to sufficient land to maintain her: - Gils (except in Fazilka) Siddhus of Zira, Muktsar and Fazilka, Dhaliwals of the same tahsils, Khosas of Zira and Moga, and the miscellaneous Jats of Ferozepur and Moga, the Siddhus of the 11 Bhaika villages of Nathana ;
(ii) she gets a son’s share:- Gils of Fazilka, Sandhus, Khosas of Ferozepur, Dhaliwals of Moga and Ferozeput, Bagri Kumhars, Mahtams of Muktsar and Fazilka;
(iii) maintenance only is allowed: - Siddhus of Moga and Ferozepur, Khosas of Muktsar, Bagri Jats and Suthars, Bishnois;
(iv) the sonless widow receives a share according to chundavand, i.e. the distribution is according to the number of wives-Mahtams of Ferozepur.
Sodhis say she gets nothing.
Among the Muhammadan tribes the replies are equally diverse –
(i) A son’s share is allowed by Nipals, Gujars, Chishtis, Bodlas, Muhammadan Jats (except in Zira), Sayyads of Zira and Moga, Moghals of Muktsar, Dogars of Zira and Moga, Rajputs of Moga and Zira and those of Ferozepur except Bhattis and Joyas, and of Fazilka except the Sukheras, Arains except in Muktsar.
(ii) Maintenance only is admitted by Arains of Muktsar, Sayyads of Ferozepur, Muktsar and Fazilka, Rajputs of Muktsar, Wattus of Muktsar, Muhammadan Jats of Zira, Dogars of Fazilka.
(iii) The chundavand method is followed by Bhattis and Joya, Rajputs of Ferozepur, Sukhera Rajputs of Fazilka, Dogras of Ferozepur and Muktsar, Wattus (except in Muktsar), Pathans of Zira.
(iv) Nothing is conceded by the Moghals of Ferozepur, Zira and Fazilka and the Pathans of Ferozepur.
Note. – Many of the instances are really inconclusive as whether the system following is (i) or (iii), as there are cases in which there was one sonless widow and only one son by the other wife.
Maintenance of course includes the possession by the widow of sufficient land to maintain herself, and there are instances where the widow has been content with possession of a smaller area than that recorded as her share” (1).
11 P. R. 1882– Dhillon Jats. By custom a sonless widow is not entitled to succeed as heir to a share of her husband’s estate in the presence of sons of her husband by another wife. But she is entitled to maintenance which might be assigned to her in the form of a portion of her husband’s estate to be made over to her for her own use upon the usual tenure of a widow, such portion being determined with reference to the circumstances ordinarily taken into consideration in determining the amount of maintenance to be assigned to a widow from her husband’s estate, such as the size of the estate, the number of persons to be provided for the fair wants of a person in her position, and rank of life etc.
107 P. R. 1866 – Arains of Ferozepur District.
A childless widow is not by custom entitled as of right to a share of her deceased husband’s land by way of maintenance in presence of sons by another wife.
“In the presence of sons and their male lineal descendants through males, widows and unmarried daughters do not succeed. Heirs are responsible for their maintenance till their marriage or death and for the marriage expenses of the latter (2).
“If there be no male lineal descendants, through males, the inheritance devolves on the widow in preference to all others for her life-time till re-marriage. A widow, in possession of her deceased husband’s estate, arely inherits property left by her husband’s collaterals in the manner in which her husband would have done had he been alive” (3).
A.I.R.1933 Lah. 468–According to the Customary Law of the Gujranwala District Compiled in 1914, in the presence of sons widows do not succeed. They have only a right of maintenance.
Where a court sanctioned a compromise by which certain portion of property was given to widows who were only entitled to maintenance and to which the minor was entitled to succeed wholly under the recorded custom ; held, that the compromise was not for the minor’s benefit and that the court did not exercise discretion property.
“Son or sons or their male lineal descendants have prior claims of inheritance to all others. But the sonless widow or widows get equal shares with the son or sons till death or remarriage. Though mutations are sanctioned accordingly yet such widows generally hold no actual possession of their share and are given its produce as maintenance. Likewise the female issues of such widows do not inherit any share, but are entitled to maintenance only. No custom of giving a share is established, though a share is often consent to a childless widow” (1).
“Daughters are never allowed a share in the presence of sons. The mother of sons also gets no share in their presence. All the tribes, with a few exceptions, state that the step-mother is allowed a share, her share being in accordance with the chundavand rule where this rule is followed, and equal to that of a single son where the rule of succession is pagvand. The exceptions are (i) the Muhammadan Rajputs of the Shakargarh Tahsil, who state that she gets only as much land as is sufficient for her maintenance, and (ii) the Arains, Gujars, Mallaks, Brahmans, Khatris, Bedis and Sodhis of the Gurdaspur and the Labanas of the Shakargarh Tahsil, who state that she gets no land but merely maintenance” (2).
In some cases, however, the step-mother was given her full share.
“The male lineal descendants, however remote, will first succeed but where there are no such descendants the widow of the deceased, not married to a second husband, is entitled to the inheritance. Daughters get no share of the inheritance at least in the presence of the widow. A section of the Sayyads of the village Masanian of the Batala Tahsil, however, state that on a proprietor dying sonless his daughter succeeds to half her property and gets immediate possession of it, and only the other half which is ultimately to go to the collaterals of the deceased remains with the widow till remarriage or death (3).
60 P. R. 1895 – Bhandari Khatris of Batala. A mother is entitled to a share equal to that of son when the sons divide the paternal estate after the father’s death. She does not, however, get it by way of inheritance, but simply by way of maintenance.
“Whereas the custom of maonbat prevails, if there be a childless widow and sons by another widow, sometimes (but rarely), the childless widow may take a life-interest in the share of her husband’s land which would have gone to her son if she had any” (4).
“If there be no male lineal descendants through males, the widow inherits preference to all others. (All tribes).
Note. – In a few families of Beloch, it seems the widow does not inherit, and is entitled to maintenance only, but this is the only exception to the otherwise universal rule” (1).
“A widow has a life-interest in her deceased husband’s estate ; but not ordinarily to a greater extent than is necessary for her personal support. Thus, the sons can divide the estate on there father’s death giving their mother only a share equal to their own. In the case of large estates only so much as is necessary for her support would be given to her. If the father divided his estate among his sons during his life-time, keeping a share for himself, the widow will not unfrequently retain that share after his death, or the whole land may be divided at the father’s death, and the sons support their widowed mother. The particular course taken in each case probably depends very much on the circumstances of individual families. But in the event of a dispute coming before our Courts, custom would be found clearly to give the widow the first claim on the estate to the extent necessary for her personal support. The widow has in no case more than a life-interest : She may temporatily transfer her interest in the land in order to meet pressing and necessary claims. It is not clear now far the consent of the nearest heirs is necessary to such transfers” (2).
If a man dies without male issue inheritance devolves on his widow or his widows. In some very rare cases where a man has more wives than one, and some of the wives have male issue, while others have not, the estate of the deceased is inherited by his widow according to the chundavand rule (3).
Sirsa District (old).
“If there be no male lineal descendants through males, the widow inherits in preference to all others. (All tribes, both Hindus and Musalman)” (4).
“If the deceased have left a sonless widow, besides sons by another wife, the sonless widow sometimes takes for her life-time half the whole estate of the decased, especially if she have daughters to bring up and marry, sometimes only a share equal to a son’s share. (Rain, Musalman Jat and Rajput, Kumhar).
If the deceased have left a sonless widow, besides sons by another wife, the sonless widow takes for her life-time a share equal to a son’s share. (Bodla, Chishti, Wattu, Chuhra, Bawariya, Heri).
If the deceased have left a sonless widow besides sons by another wife, the sonless widow sometimes gets a share of the land equal to the share of a son for her life, but more often gets only enough land for her maintenance or simply enough of the produce of the common holding to maintain her comfortable. (Sikh Jat).
(If the deceased have left a sonless widow besides sons by another wife, the sonless widow does not get any separate share of the property, but gets maintenance from the sons. (Bagri Jat, Suthar, Banya, Rora, Brahman).
Note. – A mother of sons is not entitled to any share by inheritance, and no share in the land is ever recorded in her name. But sometimes when the sons divide the estate after the father’s death, they make some special allowance for the mother” (1).
“All tribes reply that the widow and mother succeed equally to a limited life-estate in the property of the deceased. This does not apply to the two families following the rule of primogeniture – (the family of the Rana of Manaswal and that of Rai Wazir Khan of Bhangala)” (2). In these two families widow can never succeed and the estate goes to the nearest male heir (3).
A sonless widow is not entitled to a share of her deceased husband’s property in the presence of sons of another widow, but there are numerous instances, where she has succeeded to a share equal to that of a son and sometimes to a smaller share. In families following the chundavand rule a sonless widow naturally takes her share (4):
52 P.R 1886–Dodh Rajputs of Manaswal, Hoshiarpur District. A childless widow in presence of children of another widow gets maintenance only.
5 P.R. 1911–Muhammadan Rajputs. Three widows held entitled to life-interest in
=8. C. 499 equal shares.
322 P.L.R. 1913–Sainis. The onus of establishing a special custom in favour of
=20 I.C. 876 the succession of a step-mother is on party asserting its existence.
A.I.R. 1935 Lah. 801 – Bharwanas, Muhammadans, District Jhang, widow’s life-
=159 I.C. 975 estate recognized.
=17 Lah. 373.
“Male lineal descendants have prior claims to inheritance. Qureshi Hashmi residents of village Sherkot state that, in the absence of a male issue in the family, the daughters inherit on the death of their father. The faqir Mujawars of Atharan Hazari, Tahsil Jhang, also state similarly. Other tribes admit that succession in the first place goes to the sons and their direct male lineal descendants, failing them to the widows till death or remarriage, failing widows to unmarried daughters until their marriage, failing these to the collateral descendants of the common male ancestor. In the absence of male collateral kindred within five degrees, daughters, their sons, sisters and their sons succeed in the order given. If the deceased leaves a widow and unmarried daughters from another wife, half the property goes to the widow and half to the daughters. The following tribes profess a different custom: -
1. Some Sayyads of Chiniot Tahsil allege that if any person has neither sons nor nephews, then daughters inherit the property in preference to the male collateral kindred, but no instance to this effect was cited. Among Sayyads and Qureshis, in the absence of collaterals within four degrees, daughters do inherit, especially those married with collaterals within five degrees.
2. Chelas of Wasu Astana, Sial Bharwanas of Tahsils Shorkot and Jhang (residents of Qaim Bharwana, Tahsil Shorkot and Satiand Tahsil Jhang) allege that, in case of vast property the prevalent custom among their families is that the widow of a childless owner is given so much land as is sufficient for her maintenance, and male collateral relatives from the common ancestor inherit the rest of the deceased’s property and that it also happens that the whole property goes to the male collateral kindred and a widow only gets maintenance. Other Bharwanas state that this has always been done with consent of the widow concerned” (1).
“If there be no male lineal descendants through direct line of descent and there is a widow and persons enumerated in the question, then the property goes to the widow. Some tribes state that in case the daughter or daughters are by mothers other than the surviving widow or widows, then they also inherit till marriage equally with their step-mother or mothers” (2).
All tribes –
“The widow succeeds succeeds for life or until remarriage. Some of the Mairs and Kassars say that the widow is only entitled to maintenance but in fact there is no instance of a brother or uncle excluding a widow” (3).
A.I.R. 1924 Lah. –Gujars. An entry in the Riwaj-i-am being in favour of a step-
556 = 5 Lah. 274 Mother succeeding equally with a son, the onus was on the
=83 I. C. 963 son to rebut it. Oral evidence in such cases is of very little value.
“The son or sons inherit in preference to all others. If there are sons, widow or widows are only entitled to maintenance and unmarried daughters are also entitled to maintenance and their marriage expenses. Brothers and other relatives have no rights in the presence of sons.
In the Nakodar Tahsil, however, among Jat Hindus, Jat Muhammadans, Rajput Muhammadans, Arains, Gujjars, Dogars, Sayyads and Kambhos it is said that a widow with sons takes no share, but no sonless widow in the presence of sons takes a share equal to that of each of the sons (1).
On Failure of lineal male descendants within three generations the widow is entitled to inherit” (2).
38 I.C 597–Kharadis. In matters of succession and maintenance of widow they are governed by custom. A step-son is therefore bound to maintain his step-mother out of the estate of his deceased father.
69 I.C. 136 –Weavers of Basti Ghuzan. A daughter is not entitled to succeed by by custom to the estate of her father in preference to his mother.
“In such cases the inheritance passes to the sons, and as the chundavand rule is generally followed in this district a sonless widow is also entitled to a share if they have got brother to succeed their father” (3).
“All the tribes except the Jats of Kangra Tahsil reply that the widow and mother succeed equally to a limited life-estate in the property of the deceased.
Apparently in such cases on the death of one of the females her rights lapse to the survivor and the collaterals cannot succeed as long as one of them is alive and does not re-marry and thereby lose her rights” (4).
135 P. R. 1884 – There is no well-established custom among Gharbari Gosains of the western part of the Kangra valley by which a mother is preferred to the widow of a deceased holder of shrine property.
36 P.R. 1914 –In matters of succession the widow of a Bairagi excludes the Guru.
The widow succeeds to all her husband’s property, divided or undivided (5). In families which observe chundavand, a sonless widow shares equally with the issue of the second wife (6). A widow can succeed to the estate of her deceased husband as against the mother of her husband only in the presence of a brother-in-law or male issue of such brother-in-law. Otherwise the two widows take in equal shares (7).
If a man die leaving two widows of whom one has a son and the other has not, the Sayyads of Barsat follow the Shara, other Sayyads the Sheikhs, and Afghans of Karnal, the Jats of Karnal, Rors, Bairagis and Arains state that the sonless widow is entitled to maintenance only. The Jats of Panipat, all Rajputs and all Gujars of Panipat state that she has a life-interest in half the estate but has no power of alienation. No other tribe recognize any custom on the point (1).
Note.–It would seem, however, that in families in which the custom of chundavand prevails, the sonless widow invariably takes a full share.
85 P.R. 1887 –Pathans of Panipat. The onus lay on the plaintiff to establish that a widow succeeds to her husband’s estate not as a full owner but has a life-interest only, and that he had failed to discharge it.
34 P.R. 1880 –By general custom of the Punjab a widow, just as a mother, takes a life-interest and nothing more.
“All tribes –
The son or sons or their male lineal descendants through males inherit in preference to all others. If a man has more than one wife but a son or sons by only one of them, the childless widow is not allotted a share in land but only gets maintenance.
The Arains of village Faizpur Khurd state that childless widows get for their lives a share equal to that of a son. (C. A. 1131 of 1873).
Sindhu Jats –Kumhari widow of a Sikh Jat receives life-interest or maintenance. (C. A. 68 of 1908)
Bhullar Jats –Childless widow succeeded equally with her step-son.
(C. A. 945 of 1907).
Dhillon Jats. –Childless widow entitled to maintenance which is generally assigned in the form of a portion of her husband’s land which is made over to her.
(11 P. R. 1882).
Dhillon Jats –(1) General rule is to allot maintenance to the widow in the shape of a quantity of her husband’s land and not in cash or grain payment.
(2) The land given to a widow may be equal to the property allotted to a son. (30 P. R. 1905).
Khatris –Brahmani wife neither entitled to maintenance nor life-estate in the property left by her Khatri husband. (C. A. 766 of 1907” (2).
C. A. 395 of 1907 –Sindhu Jats; A widow is the heir of her childless husband.
C. A. 2815 of 1911 –A Kashmiri widow succeeds according to Shara.
C. A. 1917 of 1911–Among Khatris, a widow whose husband was a member of a Joint Hindu family cannot claim a share partition but only maintenance.
C. A. 1550 of 1916 –Vighmal Khojas of Shahdara, Lahore. The widow gets nothing but maintenance in the presence of sons.
“A widow with sons takes no share, but a sonless widow, in the presence of sons, takes a share equal to that of each of the sons, though she is sometimes content with less.
Where the custom of chundavand is observed the property is divided into as many shares as there are widows and each widow, or her sons, gets one share …….
At last Settlement the Hindu Jats of Jagraon Tahsil stated that in the presence of sons by another widow the childless widow is not allotted more than maintenance, but it is now admitted, and supported by numerous instances, that she ranks as an heir……….
The custom of all tribes seems to be that where the relations between the sonless widow and her step-sons are harmonious she is content with maintenance or with a share of the estate just sufficient for her maintenance but that she is always entitled to insist on being treated as if she were a son. This is true even among Awans, and Hindu Rajputs, who at last Settlement said that a sonless widow in presence of sons (i. e., her step-sons) get only maintenance” (1).
“It is admitted by all tribes and is beyond question that failing male descendants, the widow has a right of succession superior to that of daughters and collaterals.
It is only when there are a widowed wife, a widowed mother and a widowed daughter-in-law that the custom is at all uncertain. In such circumstances custom is sometimes disregarded and the most amicable arrangement made. In fairly numerous cases the mother has waived her right of succession, but in all the contested cases which have been collected the mother has secured a share. The daughter-in-law very seldom wives her right. The custom of all tribes undoubtedly is that the widowed mother, wife and daughter-in-law succeed jointly and in equal shares” (2).
116 P. R. 1906 –Arains. There is no custom established by which a widow is entitled to succeed to the estate of her deceased husband equally with her step-son.
84 P.R. 1912 –Gujars of Ludhiana Tahsil. Widow not entitled to succeed equally with her step-son to the estate of her deceased husband. The widow of a predeceased son is in a worse position than that of the widow.
43 P. R. 1919 –Hindu Sikh Jats. A widow is entitled to succeed the estate of her
= 51 I. C. 417 deceased childless son in the presence of a son by another wife.
(Pathans and Awans) –In the absence of sons, the widow inherits for her life or till re-marriage. Sometimes the widow or widows receive an equal share with the sons or more or less for their lives by way of maintenance.
Among the Hindus, the widow does not take a share in the presence of a son. Indeed in respectable families she does not usually inherit property in preference to brothers or collaterals, and only receives maintenance but the general custom is for a sonless widow to succeed for life in preference to collaterals (1).
On failure of male lineal descendants, widows succeed till remarriage or death (2).
The Khudakka and Sodozai Pathans and the family of Hakim Shah Baksh Qureshi of the Multan Tahsil and Jabla and Saddiqui Qureshis of the Lodhran Tahsil and the family of Diwan Muhammad Baqar Shah Tahsil Shujabad, followed Muhammadan Law. Similarly Aroras, Khatris and Brahmins of the Multan Town, except Pushkarna Brahmins, follow Hindu Law.
It is alleged by other tribes that if the deceased leaves a widow and unmarried daughters from another wife, half the property goes to the widow and half to the daughters. The Muhammadans of the Kabirwala Tahsil, however, place sister’s sons between daughters and daughter’s sons. The rural Hindus of Multan Tahsil say that a widow is entitled to maintenance only. The position of the mother and son’s widow generally approximates to that of the deceased’s widow (3).
“All trubes, except rural Hindus of the Multan Tahsil and Arains of Mailsi Tahsil, reply that a chidless widow gets only a suitable portion of the property in lieu of maintenance. The rural Hindus of the Multan Tahsil allege that she gets no part of the property but is allowed only maintenance. The Arains of Mailsi Tahsil assert that she gets a share equal to that of each son” (4).
“There is no more difficult question in the district to answer than this, and for this reason the replies of the different tribes have been recorded in details, together with all instances which have been found. My opinion is that the original rule must have been that sons succeeded. They were responsible for the maintenance of all unmarried females, whether widows, sisters or daughters, till death or re-marriage. It there were no sons, the females of the house had a right to be maintained from the property of the deceased till their death or re-marriage. This right normally took the form of an interest in the land of the deceased, the widow excluding daughters, but in the case when the estate was very considerable the females got fixed maintenance only. As the females died or married, the property passed to the nearest male agnates of their deceased husband, brother or father, such a custom, if it ever existed, has now been greatly modified under the influence of Muhammadan Law, special family agreements and most of the decisions of the law courts. In some families daughters now exclude males as a matter of course ; in others the females are entitled to maintenance only (1).
Leiah Tahsil –Jats, Biloches, Pathans, Sayyads, Qureshis, 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.
Muzaffargarh Tahsil –Jats, Biloches, Pathans, Sayyads, Hindus –As above. When an estate is a considerable one the widow gets only maintenance (in the case of Muhammadan tribes like Sayyads, Pathans, etc).
Qureshis –Succession in the first place goes to the sons and their direct male lineal descendants. In their absence if the estate is a large one, the real brothers of the deceased succeed. The widow receives maintenance. If there be no brothers and their sons the property goes to the widows and in the absence of widows, to the daughters and their offspring and, failing daughters or their offspring, to the sisters and their offspring. When the inheritance devolves upon a daughter, the daughter and the grand-daughter have equal rights.
In some cases the widow have succeeded in the presence of brothers and their sons, and collaterals in the presence of daughters.
Alipur Tahsil –Jats, Biloches, Pathans, Sayyads, Qureshis, Hindus –As above.
Kot Adu Tahsil –Jats, Biloches, Pathans, Sayyads, Qureshis, Hindus –As above.
“The Halimzai and Tarakzai Muhammadans stated that women could not in any circumstances inherit, but would only receive a subsistence allowance from the heirs. The other tribes stated that in the absence of male lineal descendants the inheritance would pass to the widow or widows, or failing a widow to the daughter or daughters. In these cases the interest would be one for life or till re-marriage of widow or marriage of daughters only………Only among the Sayyads of Peshawar City there appeared to be doubt as to whether widow or daughters could inherit, or could merely claim to be supported by the heirs” (2).