P (PLP)
FAZAL DAD KHAN and other‑Defendants‑Appellants Versus GASHTASAB KHAN and another‑‑Plaintiffs‑Respondents
| Citation | P (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | A. R. Cornelius, Acting C. ,J. and M. R. Kayani, ,J. |
| Parties | FAZAL DAD KHAN and other‑Defendants‑Appellants Versus GASHTASAB KHAN and another‑‑Plaintiffs‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: A. R. Cornelius, Acting C. ,J. and M. R. Kayani, ,J..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P (PLP) (FAZAL DAD KHAN and other‑Defendants‑Appellants Versus GASHTASAB KHAN and another‑‑Plaintiffs‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dr. Tasadduque Hussain and Muhammad Siddiq, for Appellant.
- Iftikhar‑ul‑Haq Khan and S. H.Jafri, for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Custom (Punjab)‑‑Succession‑Chundawand or Pagwand
Gakhars of Jhelum tahsil of Jhelum District‑Prevailing rule is pagwand: The prevailing rule of custom among the Gakhars of Jhelum tahsil is pagward. There, has been a growing tendency since the previous Riwaj -i‑am of 101 (Talbot) to abide by the rule of pagwand.
Judgment & Decree
14‑6‑1939 Of these Exs. D. 1 and D. 6 relate to the villages Landala and Ram Dyal, which do not belong to the twenty villages to which the chundawand rule applies. After the remand they produced the following twenty‑one more instances :‑ Serial No. Exhibit No. Village Date
1. D. 15 Lahri 27‑8‑1897
2. D. 12 Lahri 2‑4‑1891
3. D. 16 Bakrala 28‑6‑1913
4. D. 10 Badlote 27‑12‑1918
5. D. 27 Jorala 23‑11‑1921
6. D. 21 Pandori 18‑12‑1922
7. D. 17 8/11‑L 13‑6‑1926
8. D. 22 Khumba 7‑7‑1926
9. D. 18 Domeli 13‑12‑1926
10. D. 20 Umral 23‑2‑1927
11. D. 13 Lahri 30‑9‑1927
12. D. 23 Rasila 23‑1‑1928
13. D. 8 ' Baragran 4‑12‑1928
14. D. 9 Chukiam 4‑12‑1928
15. D. 14 Lahri 2‑5‑1929
16. D. 11 Badlote 13‑4‑1934
17. D. 7 Ram Dyal 27‑5‑1937
18. D. 19 Umral 5‑5‑1939
19. D. 16 Kawi 5‑2‑1942
20. D. 24 Bakrala 30‑6‑1942
21. D. 25 Batmast 11‑6‑1942 Of these Nos. 4 and 16 belong to Badlote, No. 5 to Jorala, No. .8 to Khumba, No. 17 to Ram Dyal, No. 19 to Kawi and No. 21 to Batmast, villages which do not belong to the group of twenty afore‑mentioned. This leaves us with fourteen instances which, taken with the four earlier instances, take up the number to eighteen. It is unnecessary to rely on the oral evidence produced on both sides, for it generally refers to the instances, which have been cited above. We have noticed that the general rule relating to Gakhars of Jhelum tehsil is pagwand and that in the Riwai‑i‑am of 1901 an exception of a limited character was observed in the case of a group of twenty villages. Now, since even in those twenty villages there have been eighteen cases of succession according to the Pagwand rule and only four according to the chundawand rule, it must be held with the statement in Thapar's Riwai‑i‑am that there has been a growing tendency since the previous Riwaj‑i‑am to abide by the rule of pagwand. It is remarkable that in 'the present family there has been no case of succession according to the chundawand rule since 1886. If this is due to the fact that there have been no cases of children from a plurality of wives, it might also mean that the fashion of marrying more wives than one is also going out, in, which case the rule of chundawand has died a natural death. The learned trial judge relied on a previous statement of Muhammad Khan, father of the parties, in or about 1916 which he made in the course of another suit in favour of a party that profited by the rule of chundawand. This is not decisive, and it might be that he made the statement because he himself was in favour of the custom. In any case, the instances cited show that since 4886 there have been only four cases of succession according to the chundawand rule among Gakhars throughout the Jhelum tehsil. Some of the instances cited by defendants were criticised as not laying down a rule of succession. These are Exs. D. 8, D. 18 and, D.
21. The objection against Ex. D. 8 was that it did not show that the sons were from two mothers. On this point, however, reference may be made to .the evidence of D. W. 7 at pages 3 and 4 of the new paper book and D. W. 2 at. page 14 of old paper book, statements .which show that there were two mothers. In Ex. D. 18 which belongs to, Domeli, it .was stated in the mutation that although the custom of the village was chundawand, the father had left a will in favour of the rule of fiagwand. The very circumstance that the will was accepted without any but formal resistance would show that the rule of pagwand was regard ed as acceptable even in a cahundaw and stronghold. In Ex. D. 21 there were two sons, from one mother and four sons from another, and the five youngest gave some extra land to the eldest as the chief's share. For the rest the shares were equal. The fact that the eldest son was recognized as sardar does not alter the rule of succession. I hold that the prevailing rule of custom among the Gakhars of Jhelum tehsil is Pagwand, and as the plaintiffs have not cited though instances to rebut that rule the appeal must he accepted and the suit dismissed with costs throughout. A. R. CORNELIUS, A. C. J.‑I. agree. A. H Appeal accepted.