P L D (Rev (PLP)

FIDA HASSAN, F. C.‑This order will dispose of two Revision Petitions Nos. 127 and 128 of 1952‑

53. The following pedigree‑table may be seen for a proper appreciation of the facts of the case:- KARIM BAKHSH ___________________|_________________ | | Mst. Sadan Mst. Naulan | | | Murad Bakhsh | _______________ | ______________ | | | | Wahid Bakhah Allah Bachaya | (Petitioner). (Petitioner). |__________________________ ________________________________|_______________________ | | | | | Bahawal Khan Amir Bux Mst. Lalan Mst. Nuran Mst. Taj (Deceased). (sisters of the deceased). Two mutations Nos. 1378 and 1379 of village Umarpur Janubi were entered on the death of Amlr Bakhsh. The Assist ant Collector 11 Grade saoctioned the mutations in favour of the three sisters Mst. Lalan, Mst. Nuran and Mst. Taj to the exclusion of their brother Bahawal Khan and their cousin's sons Wahid Bakhsh and Allah Bachaya. On appeal, the Collector, vide his order dated 11th October 1950 modified the Assistant Collector's order sanctioning the mutations of Amir Bux's inheritance by allowing one‑half share to Wahid Bakhsh and Allah Bachaya and the other half to the three sisters. He held that under the general custom among the Jats of Muzaffargarh District, sisters were excluded from succession by collaterals up to the 5th degree. Nevertheless, he allowed the three sisters one half of the inheritance on the ground that their brother Bahawal Khan had relinquished his claim in their favour. On second appeal before the Commissioner, the sisters succeeded in exclud ing their brother and the sons of Murad Bakhsh. The Commis sioner decided the issue by referring to answer to question No. 76 as recorded in Urdu in the Riwaj‑i‑am of the district for the year 1922-23. This answer in Urdu is reproduced below:- Wahid Bakhsh and Allah Bachaya have come in revision before me against the Commissioner's order. It has been contended on their behalf that the learned Commissioner has misread the answer to question No. 76 of the Riwaj‑l‑am as printed in the English Edition of 1925. My attention was drawn to the answer under this question in the English Edition which says that for an answer to this question reference should be made to ques tion No.

34. Question No. 34, however, reads as following:‑ "If a man dice leaving a widow, or widows ; a son, or sons ; a daughter, or daughters ; a brother, and other relatives, upon whom will the succession devolve? State the order of succession." No definite answer to this question has been recorded in the answer, and the compiler stated that his opinion was that the original rule must have been that sons succeeded, but he goes on to say later in the answer that "in some families daughters now exclude males as a matter of course ; in others the females are entitled to maintenance only. The only help which I can offer to those who come after me is a fairly long list of actual instances in which famales have excluded male agnates or have been excluded by them." Citing several instances under this answer, the compiler has recorded at page 26 of the English Edi tion of Riwaj‑i‑am of 1925 with reference to Jats of Muzaffar garh Tahsil. Parties are Jats of this Tahsil as follows :‑ "Succession in the first place goes to the sons and their male lineal descendants, and, failing them, to the widows for their lives, and, in the latter's absence, to the daughters, and in default of the daughters, to the collaterals. In case a daughter contracts a marriage in another tribe, she loses her rights." It was, thus, argued on the basis of this conclusion of the Settlement Officer that the sisters do not come into the picture at all, and to default of the daughters, collaterals were to succeed. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, brought with him the original register showing the answer to question No. 76 recorded in Urdu and signed by Mr. Anderson, Settlement Officer, and argued that there was an obvious omission in the English copy of the Riwaj‑i‑am in not incorporating therein the translat ed answer. He also produced an attested copy of a judgment dated 8th October 1951, of Mr. Justice S. A. Rahman which deal with a succession case of Sandilah Jats of Muzaffargarh Tahsil. In this judgment, a reference was made to answer to ques tion No. 76, and the Hon'ble Judge observed "this answer clearly shows that the collaterals are postponed to sisters or their issue, I in the absence of daughters when sphere is a question of inherit ance to sonless proprietor. Apparently, the English abstract contains an omission in this respect. The entry referred to above, was sufficient, in my opinion, to raise an initial presumption in favour of the plaintiffs‑respondents in this case who are the sisters' sons of the last male owner as against the collaterals." It was, thus, contended on behalf of the respondents that the learned Commissioner was quite right in following the Riwaj‑i‑am which was plainly recorded in the answer to question No. 76 in the original Urdu copy of the compilation. He also argued that there was a string of authorities to the effect that among Jat of Muzaffargarh Tahsil, sisters excluded tote collaterals in the matter of succession. He referred to 44 P R 1909, 69 1 C 331, 73 1 C 30g and 194 Lah.

232. Learned counsel for the petitioners laid considerable emphasis on the fact that the sense of the general custom of the district was that sisters were to succeed only after the collaterals. He also tried to argue that the printed copy of the English Rlwaj‑i‑am in which there is no mention of sisters under the Jats of Muzaffar garh Tahsil, should be presumed to be correct. And finally, that it would be extremely incongruous ;o the custom of agricultural tribes in the Punjab that in the matter of succession a brother should be excluded by a sister. I have carefully considered the case. There is no reason why the ruling of the Hon'ble Judge in which the point concern ing the entries in the English Edition and the Urdu compilation of the Rawaj‑1‑am have been discussed, should not be followed. That judgment also is in consonance with the interpretation of the answer arrived at by the Commissioner. I do see some force in the contention of counsel for he petitioners that it is some what of a surprise that a brother should be excluded by a sister in the matter of inheritance, but it is a well‑known fact that different tribes in the Punjab follow different customs. The Jats of Muzaffargarh District are apparently governed by the peculiar custom that the sisters are given preference over the brothers. If the petitioners have any genuine grievance against what appears to the Revenue Officers to be a correct order in summary proceedings, they should go to the Civil Court. I decline to interfere in the Commissioner's order and reject the petitions. Plead'er's fee Rs.

32. Orders to be communicated to the parties. A. H. Petition rejected.