The Punjab and Haryana High Court has reiterated that the general custom governing Jat tribes permits an issueless proprietor to bequeath ancestral property in favour of a person who rendered services to him during his lifetime. [2026 LiveLaw (PH) 229]

Observing that such a beneficiary is, for this limited purpose, treated on a footing analogous to a near agnate, the Court held that the customary restriction on alienation of ancestral property does not operate as an absolute bar to such a disposition.

Referring to Nathu Ram and others v. Jug Lal (Died) and represented by his LRs Atma Ram son of Jug Lal (1981 PLR 754), the Court observed:

"Assuming arguendo that the suit land was ancestral in the hands of Bishan Singh qua the plaintiffs, the submission that a Jat governed by custom could not at all alienate or bequeath such property in derogation of the rights of collaterals does not assist the appellants-plaintiffs to the extent claimed. As explained by this Court in Nathu Ram's case, while will in respect of ancestral immovable property may not find general recognition under custom, the general custom equally and clearly permits a sonless proprietor to make a valid gift, or disposition in the nature of a gift, in favour of a person who has rendered services to him, such a person being treated analogously to a near agnate for that limited purpose."

The Court further emphasised that a plea based on custom restricting alienation cannot succeed merely on assertion, and must be established through clear and unambiguous evidence.

"It is well-settled principle of law that the custom must be established by clear and unambiguous evidence of usage, and that general propositions about a tribe's incapacity to alienate ancestral property admit of well-recognized exceptions, including alienation for consideration in the nature of services rendered to a sonless proprietor. No evidence was led by the appellants-plaintiffs to displace the existence of such an exception, or otherwise to establish a rigid custom excluding it."

The Court was hearing a regular second appeal filed by the legal heirs of Beli Ram, who sought possession of agricultural land left behind by his brother, Bishan Singh, contending that a Will and a consent decree executed by him in favour of Smt. Debo were contrary to the customary law governing Jats.

Bishan Singh owned agricultural land measuring 23 bighas and 19 biswas in Village Sankhera, Tehsil Jagadhri. The plaintiffs claimed that the property was ancestral in nature and that Bishan Singh, who died issueless on August 24, 1979, could not alienate it in favour of a stranger in the presence of collaterals. They challenged the validity of a Will executed in favour of Debo, who claimed to be Bishan Singh's wife by way of Karewa marriage, as well as a consent decree through which half of the land had been transferred to her. During the pendency of the suit, Debo sold part of the land to two purchasers, who claimed protection under Section 41 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

The plaintiffs argued that Debo, who belonged to the Rajput community, could not have validly contracted a Karewa marriage with Bishan Singh, a Jat, and further contended that the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, including the presence of the beneficiary at the time of execution and the fact that one of the attesting witnesses was from a neighbouring village.

The purchasers, on the other hand, submitted that the validity of the Will had already been upheld in an earlier suit in which Beli Ram had represented the minor parties. They further argued that the decree recognising Debo as Bishan Singh's wife had attained finality and that long cohabitation and services rendered by her furnished a valid basis for the disposition.

Examining the validity of the Will, the Court referred to Murthy v. C. Saradambal, V. Kalyanaswamy v. L. Bakthavatsalam and Chinu Rani Ghosh v. Subhash Ghosh to hold that the testimony of the sole attesting witness, corroborated by the notarial endorsement on the document, was sufficient to establish due execution under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The non-examination of the scribe, the Court held, was inconsequential.

Relying on Pentakota Satyanarayana v. Pentakota Seetharatnam, the Court further held that neither the beneficiary's presence at the time of execution nor the fact that an attesting witness belonged to another village constituted suspicious circumstances capable of invalidating the Will.

The Court also noted that the decree passed in 1978, in which Debo was described as Bishan Singh's wife, had never been independently challenged. Referring to Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan v. Kattukandi Edathil Valsan, it held that prolonged cohabitation raises a presumption of marriage, which could not be displaced in the facts of the case.

Additionally, the Court observed that Beli Ram had represented the minor parties in an earlier suit upholding the Will and that one of the appellants had, in separate proceedings, acknowledged Debo's title as flowing from inheritance from her "late husband". Such inconsistent conduct, the Court held, amounted to impermissible approbation and reprobation.

Finding no illegality in the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court, the High Court dismissed the appeal.

Title: Surmukh Singh and others v. Smt. Debo and others

Counsel for the Appellants: Mr. Ashok Kumar Khubbar, AdvocateCounsel for Respondent Nos. 4 & 5: Mr. S.P. Laler, Advocate with Mr. Shubham Saroha, Advocate

Click here to read order