AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kuldip Singh, Judge
This judgment shall dispose of RSA Nos. 473, 477 and 519 of 2001 as common question of law is involved in all the appeals.
RSA No. 473 of 2001.
Smt.Gauran Devi and appellants filed a suit for declaration that they and Kishan Dutt, predecessor-in-interest, of respondents No. 1(a), 1(b) as well as Gujru Ram, respondent No.2, are co-sharers in possession of land, more specifically described in the plaint, measuring 1-15-81 H.M. (30 Kanals 3 Marlas), Mohal Samoon, Tehsil Indora. The entries in revenue record showing Kishan Dutt and Gujru Ram only co-sharers of the said land are illegal and void. It has also been pleaded that appellants, Smt. Gauran Devi, Kishan Dutt, Gujru Ram are entitled to shares as pleaded in the plaint, the relief of permanent prohibitory injunction has also been prayed.
It has been pleaded that Mansa Ram alias Munshi Ram, father of appellants, and husband of Smt. Gauran Devi was the last owner of the suit land. Kishan Dutt is son of Mansha Ram from first wife. The appellants are the sons of Mansha Ram from second wife Smt. Gauran Devi. At the time of death of Mansha Ram, the appellants were of tender age. Kishan Dutt was the only senior adult member of the family and was managing the property. Kishan Dutt taking advantage of the tender age of the appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi an illiterate simple woman, got mutation in respect of estate of deceased Mansha Ram entered and sanctioned wrongly showing half share in the said property. It has been alleged that Kishan Dutt was entitled to 1/5th share and mutation after the death of Mansha Ram should have been entered in the names of appellants, Smt. Gauran Devi in equal shares, each one should have got 1/5th share.
On 01.09.1959 after the death of Mansha Ram, family arrangement took place, Kishan Dutt admitted that he has 1/5th share in the estate of deceased Mansha Ram. Kishan Dutt taking advantage of wrong entries in the revenue record, moved an application for partition before Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nurpur and succeeded in getting the partition on the basis of wrong entries which has caused irreparable loss to the appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi. On these averments, the suit was filed. Smt Gauran Devi died in second appeal and her name was deleted. Kishan Dutt also died in second appeal and his legal representatives respondents 1(a), 1(b) have been brought on record.
The suit was contested by Kishan Dutt on the grounds that appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi were neither in possession over the suit land nor they have got any right or title. In re-partition in consolidation proceedings, the land in question was allotted to him in the year 1982-83. He pleaded that he became absolute owner of the same. He pleaded that after re-partition, he sold land comprised in Khasra Nos.217, 220, 226 and 216 to Gujjar, son of Maru. The appellant No.2 also got exchanged his land with Kishan Dutt a part of the suit land comprised in Khasra No. 253/1 and 287/1.
The appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi have not challenged re-partition nor filed any appeal in the consolidation proceedings. The jurisdiction of Civil Court u/s 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Consolidation of Holdings (Prevention and Fragmentation) Act, 1971 is barred.
On merits, it has been admitted that Kishan Dutt was the son from first wife and appellants are the sons of Mansha Ram from his second wife. The mother of Kishan Dutt died before the death of Mansha Ram. It has been denied that mutation of inheritance of deceased Mansha Ram was wrongly attested and sanctioned. It has been denied that half estate of deceased Mansha Ram was wrongly mutated in favour of Kishan Dutt. It has been denied that Kishan Dutt was entitled to only 1/5th share. Mansha Ram alias Munshi Ram died in the year 1950, the succession opened after the death of Mansha Ram alias Munshi Ram before coming into force Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The property of Mansha Ram devolved upon his heirs in accordance with the rule of succession prevalent at the time of death of Mansha Ram. Kishan Dutt rightly inherited half share in the property left by deceased Mansha Ram, appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi are entitled to half share in the property left by Mansha Ram.
The parties belong to agriculture tribe and are governed by custom known as ''Kangra Agricultural Custom''. According to the said custom, after the death of a male, if the male had two wives, then property is to be divided according to ''Choonda Vand'' and half share is to be given to children of each widow. Kishan Dutt, thus, had rightly succeeded half share in the property left by Mansha Ram.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
Whether the plaintiffs are co-sharers in possession with the defendant with regard to suit land, as alleged? OPP.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for a decree ofpermanent injunction, as alleged? OPP.
Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is not legallymaintainable in the present form? OPD.
Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act and conduct to bring the present suit as alleged? OPD.
Whether the suit of the plaintiffs is time barred?OPD.
Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD.
Whether the jurisdiction of this Court is barred u/s 57 of the H.P. Consolidation of Holding (Prevention and Fragmentation) Act, 1971, as alleged? OPD.
Relief.
The issues 1 to 4 and 6 were answered in negative, issues No. 5 and 7 in affirmative and the Civil Suit No.219/96/93 was dismissed on 01.01.1999 by learned Sub Judge Ist Class (I),Nurpur. The appeal filed as Civil Appeal No.20-N/1999 was dismissed by learned Additional District Judge (1),Kangra at Dharamshala on 29.05.2001, hence second appeal which has been admitted on following substantial questions of law:-
Whether the learned first appellate court did not misread the evidence particularly, Ex. PW 1/A when it held in the judgment (para 18) that this document does mention about the giving of 1/5th share of the land to the defendant Kishan Dutt?
Whether Chunda Band is not unjust and inequitable rule of succession as has been held in AIR 1947 Lahore 233 ( para 9) Bui @ Bur Singh vs. Bela Singh?
Whether the custom of Pagg Band will not be applicable in District Kangra, which was prevalent in Punjab and Kangra was a part of Punjab at the relevant time?
RSA No. 477 of 2001.
Smt. Gauran Devi and appellants filed a suit for declaration that they and Kishan Dutt, predecessor-in-interest, of respondent No. 1(a), 1(b) are co-sharers in possession of land situated in Village Tajuwan, Tika Bharlad, Tehsil Nurpur and in Tika Samaal, Mauza Choran, Tehsil Nurpur, measuring 0-60-51 H.M., more specifically described in the plaint. The entries in revenue record showing Kishan Dutt to be the co-sharers to the extent of half share are illegal and void and not binding upon the appellants and Gauran Devi. Kishan Dutt had only 1/5th share in the suit land. However, Kishan Dutt taking advantage of wrong revenue entires instituted partition proceedings and he wanted to take exclusive possession of the half share though he was entitled to 1/5th share. The consequential relief of permanent prohibitory injunction has also been prayed in the suit restraining Kishan Dutt from proceeding with the partition proceedings before Assistant Collector Ist Grade, Nurpur. In alternative, suit for joint possession.
The further case of the appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi is that Mansha Ram alias Munshi Ram, father of appellants as well as Kishan Dutt and husband of Smt. Gauran Devi was the last owner of the suit land. Kishan Dutt is son of Mansha Ram from first wife, the appellants are the sons and daughter of Mansha Ram from second wife namely Gauran Devi. At the time of death of Mansha Ram, appellants were of tender age and Kishan Dutt was only senior adult member of the family and was managing the property. Kishan Dutt taking advantage of the minority of the appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi being an illiterate and simple woman, got mutation attested in respect of estate of deceased Mansha Ram, got entered and sanctioned wrongly showing half share in the said property. Kishan Dutt was actually entitled to 1/5th share. The mutation after the death of Mansha Ram should have been entered in the names of appellants, Smt. Gauran Devi and Kishan Dutt in equal shares and each one should have got 1/5th share.
On 01.09.1959 after the death of Mansha Ram, a family arrangement was also executed, Kishan Dutt admitted that he had 1/5th share in the estate of deceased Mansha Ram. Kishan Dutt taking advantage of wrong entries in the revenue record, moved an application for partition before the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Nurpur. In case Kishan Dutt succeeded in getting partition on the basis of wrong entries, the appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi would suffer an irreparable loss. In these circumstances, the suit was filed. Smt. Gauran Devi and Kishan Dutt died during the pendency of the second appeal and their names have been deleted, however, their legal representatives have been brought on record.
The suit was contested by Kishan Dutt by taking plea that suit is not maintainable. It has been pleaded that Khasra Nos. 233 to 237 which are part of old Khasra No.102 min were in the ownership of Chhajja Singh, Kartar Singh and others as owners and in possession of Kishan Dutt to the extent of half share, whereas, in possession of appellants to the extent of half share as non occupancy tenants. The parties acquired proprietary rights accordingly and mutation of proprietary rights was also attested and sanctioned in the name of Kishan Dutt to the extent of half share and appellants to the extent of half share. It has been submitted that Khasra Nos. 399, 400,402 and 403 which have been carved out from old Khasra No.229 prior to consolidation operation were allotted in consolidation against Khasra No. 209. This land was owned and possessed by one Mangtu. This land was purchased by Kishan Dutt to the extent of half share and by appellants to the extent of half share in equal shares. The mutation of sale was attested on 17.12.1954.
It has also been pleaded that land comprised in Khasra Nos. 238, 239, 240 part of old Khasra No. 103min prior to consolidation operation during the life time of Mansha Ram was in his possession as occupancy tenant. After his death his rights in that land were inherited by Kishan Dutt to the extent of half share and by appellants to the extent of half share vide mutation No. 59 dated 19.03.1951, thereafter vide notification No. 785 proprietary rights were acquired by the parties in the same ratio being occupancy tenants of the said land.
The land comprised in Khasra Nos. 122,203, 204, 209, 210, 211, 264, 266, 240, 274, 298, 300 is recorded in the ownership of Smt. Sito Devi and others as mortgagors, Kishan Dutt and appellants as mortgagees. Kishan Dutt is rightly recorded as mortgagee of half share having succeeded to his father, who was original mortgagee under Hari Singh and others, predecessors-in-interest, of said Sito Devi and others. So far no decree of ownership has been granted against mortgagors, so the appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi have wrongly claimed ownership in the suit land. The pleas of estoppel, cause of action,limitation, non-joinder of necessary parties have also been taken.
On merits, it has been stated that Kishan Dutt is the son of Mansha Ram from first wife and appellants are the children of Mansha Ram from second wife Smt. Gauran Devi. The mother of Kishan Dutt died before the death of Manha Ram. It has been denied that mutation of inheritance of deceased Mansha Ram was wrongly attested by mutating half share of estate of Mansha Ram in favour of Kishan Dutt. It has been denied that Kishan Dutt is entitled to only 1/5th share in the estate of Mansha Ram, who died in the year 1950 much prior to commencement of Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The appellants No. 1 to 3 are the sons of Mansha Ram from second wife Smt. Gauran Devi. According to rule of succession prevalent at that time and custom, Kishan Dutt inherited to the extent of half share in the property of deceased Mansha Ram and appellants inherited half share in equal shares as per Kangra Agriculture custom. According to the said custom, after the death of a male, if the male had two wives then the property of the deceased is to be divided according to ''Choondavand'' i.e. half share is to be given to children of each widow. So, according to Kangra Agriculture custom, Kishan Dutt rightly succeeded half share of the property of deceased Mansha Ram.
The appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi have wrongly assumed that suit land was owned and possessed by Mansha Ram. Some of the suit land was purchased by Kishan Dutt to th extent of half share and by appellants No. 1 to 3 to the extent of half share. Some of the suit land was got by the parties being non occupancy tenants and proprietary rights were conferred on them in the same ratio. On some of the lands, the parties were mortgagees.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
Whether the plaintiffs and defendant are co-sharers to the extent of 1/5 share each in the suit land, as claimed? OPP.
Whether there was a family arrangement dated 1.9.1959 entered into between the parties, as alleged? If so, its effect? OPP.
Whether the suit is not maintainable, as alleged? OPD.
Whether the plaintiffs are estopped by their act conduct and laches to file the suit, as alleged ? OPD.
Whether the plaintiffs have no cause of action, as alleged ? OPD.
Whether the suit is time barred as alleged? OPD.
Whether the court has no jurisdiction, as alleged? OPD.
Whether the parties are governed by the Kangra Agricultural Custom being agricultural tribe and the succession among them is governed by ''CHOONDA BAND'', if so, its effect?OPD.
Relief.
Issues No. 1 to 5 and 7 were answered in negative, issues No. 6 and 8 in affirmative and the Civil Suit No.320/92 was dismissed on 01.01.1999 by learned Sub Judge Ist Class (I), Nurpur. On 29.05.2001 the learned Additional District Judge (1), Kangra at Dharamshala dismissed the appeal being Civil Appeal No. 21-N/99, hence second appeal which has been admitted on following substantial questions of law:
Whether the learned first appellate court did not misread the evidence particularly, Ex. PW 1/A when it held in the judgment (para 18) that this document does mention about the giving of 1/5th share of the land to the defendant Kishan Dutt?
Whether Chunda Band is not unjust and inequitable rule of succession as has been held in AIR 1947 Lah 233 ( para 9) Bui @ Bur Singh vs. Bela Singh?
Whether the custom of Pagg Band will not be applicable in District Kangra, which was prevalent in Punjab and Kangra was a part of Punjab at the relevant time?
RSA No. 519 of 2001.
Smt. Gauran Devi and appellants filed a suit for declaration that they and Kishan Dutt, predecessor-in-interest, of respondents 1(a), 1(b) are co-sharers in possession of land measuring 0-44-67 H.M. situated in village Bhalad, Tehsil Nurpur more specifically described in the plaint. The entries showing Kishan Dutt to be owner of said land are are illegal, void. Kishan Dutt has got only 1/5th share in the said land. The appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi have got 1/5th share each in the said land. The appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi are owners in equal shares to the extent of 4/5th share. The consequential relief of permanent injunction has also been prayed.
The further allegations are that Mansha Ram alias Munshi Ram, father of appellants and husband of Smt. Gauran Devi, was the last owner of the said land. Kishan Dutt is son of Mansha Ram from first wife. The appellants are sons of Mansha Ram from second wife namely Gauran Devi. At the time of death of Mansha Ram, the appellants were of tender age and Kishan Dutt was the only senior adult member of the family, managing the property. Kishan Dutt taking advantage of the minority of appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi being an illiterate woman, got mutation in respect of estate of deceased Mansha Ram entered and sanctioned by wrongly showing half share in the property left by Mansha Ram. Actually, Kishan Dutt was entitled to 1/5th share and the mutation after the death of Mansha Ram should have been entered in the names of appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi as well as Kishan Dutt in equal shares and each one should have got 1/5the share.
It has been alleged that on 01.09.1959 after the death of Mansha Ram, a family arrangement was executed, Kishan Dutt admitted that he has 1/5th share in the estate of deceased Mansha Ram. Kishan Dutt taking advantage of the wrong entries in the revenue record, moved an application for partition before the Assistant Collector Ist Class, Nurpur and in case Kishan Dutt succeeded in getting partition on the basis of wrong revenue entries, the appellants will suffer an irreparable loss.
It has also been pleaded that during consolidation proceedings land comprised in Khasra Nos. 241,282, 308, 244, 309, situated in Village Bhalad was allotted to Kishan Dutt by revenue officials in connivance with Kishan Dutt. He got his share separated from the appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi and illegally made himself owner of the whole land. In these circumstances, the suit was filed.
The suit was contested by Kishan Dutt mainly on the ground that he is the sole owner in exclusive possession of the suit land in view of partition done by the consolidation authority. The appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi have no concern with the suit land. The appellants and Smt. Gauran Devi have not challenged the partition proceedings nor preferred any appeal, now same cannot be challenged in the Civil Court. The jurisdiction of the Civil Court is barred u/s 57 of the Himachal Pradesh Consolidation of Holding ( Prevention and Fragmentation) Act, 1971. It has been alleged that Kishan Dutt and appellants purchased the joint land vide registered sale deed as per jamabandi for the year 1953-54 from Sheru. Kishan Dutt purchased half share whereas appellants purchased half share and the mutation No. 129 of the said sale deed was also attested and sanctioned in favour of appellants to the extent of half share and in favour of Kishan Dutt to the extent of remaining half share on 26.09.1955. The parties became joint owners by purchasing land and it was not inherited. The parties remained joint owners till the consolidation operation and during consolidation the joint holding was re-partitioned and the suit land was allotted to Kishan Dutt.
On merits, it has been admitted that Kishan Dutt is son of Mansha Ram from his first wife and appellants are the sons of Mansha Ram from his second wife Smt. Gauran Devi. The mother of Kishan Dutt died before the death of Mansha Ram. It has been denied that mutation of inheritance of deceased Mansha Ram was wrongly attested and sanctioned and half share of the estate of deceased Mansha Ram was wrongly mutated in favour of Kishan Dutt. It has been denied that Kishan Dutt is entitled to only 1/5th share. Mansha Ram alias Munshi Ram died in the year 1950 much prior to coming into force Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The property of Mansha Ram devolved upon his heirs in accordance with rule of succession prevalent at the time of death of Mansha Ram. According to the rule of succession prevalent at that time and also as per custom, Kishan Dutt inherited to the extent of half share the property of deceased Mansha Ram and and appellants inherited other half share in equal shares of Mansha Ram. The parties belong to agriculture tribe and are governed by the custom known as ''Kangra Agriculture Custom''. It has been alleged that as per said custom after death of a male, if the male has two wives, then his property devolves according to ''Choondavand'' i.e. half share was to be given to the children of each widow. Thus, Kishan Dutt as per ''Kangra Agriculture Custom'' rightly succeeded the half share in the property left by deceased Mansha Ram.
On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:
Whether the plaintiffs and defendant are co-sharers in possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for ? OPP.
Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to the joint possession of the suit land, as alleged? OPP.
Whether the plaintiffs are estopped from filing this suit by their act and conduct, as alleged ? OPD.
Whether this suit is not maintainable? OPD.
Whether this court has no jurisdiction? OPD.
Whether this suit is time barred?OPD.
Whether the parties are governed by the CHOONDA VAND'', as alleged?OPD.
Relief.
Issues No. 1 to 5 were answered in negative, issues No. 6 to 8 in affirmative and the Civil Suit No.87/93 was dismissed by learned Sub Judge Ist Class(1), Nurpur on 01.01.1999. In appeal, the learned Additional District Judge(1),Kangra at Dharamshala on 29.05.2001 in Civil Appeal No. 19-N/99 affirmed the judgment, decree dated 01.01.1999, hence second appeal which has been admitted on following substantial questions of law:
Whether Chunda Band is not unjust and inequitable rule of succession as has been held in AIR 1947 Lahore 233 ( para 9) Bui @ Bur Singh vs. Bela Singh?
Whether the custom of Pagg Band will not be applicable in District Kangra, which was prevalent in Punjab and Kangra was a part of Punjab at the relevant time?
I have heard learned counsel for the appellants and respondents in all the three appeals and have also gone through the record. The substantial question of law No. 1 in RSA No. 473 of 2001 and in RSA No. 477 of 2001 is similar, therefore, first of all, it is taken up for determination.
It has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that Ex. PW1/A referred to in substantial question of law No.1 in RSA No. 473 of 2001 and in RSA No. 477 of 2001 is similar in both the appeals. In RSA No. 473 of 2001 Ex. PW1/A dated 01.09.1959 is in Urdu, but its Hindi translation has also been placed on record. The learned counsel for the appellants has relied Hari Shankar Singhania and Others Vs. Gaur Hari Singhania and Others, and has submitted that a family settlement is treated differently from any other formal commercial settlement, such settlement in the eyes of law ensures peace and goodwill among the family members. Such settlements are governed by special equity principle where the terms are fair and bonafide, taking into account the well being of a family. Technicalities of limitation etc. should not be put at risk for the implementation of a settlement drawn by a family. The learned counsel for the appellants has also relied Mythili Nalini Vs. Kowmari and Others, 6 and has submitted that a family settlement settling all the disputes between the parties does not require registration.
The perusal of Ex. PW1/A indicates that property was allegedly distributed by the parties through settlement dated 01.09.1959. The Section 17 of the Indian Registration Act, 1908, provides that other non-testamentary instruments which purport or operate to create, declare, assign, limit or extinguish, whether in present or in future, any right, title or interest, whether vested or contingent, of the value of one hundred rupees and upwards, to or in immovable property shall be registered. It is not the case of the parties that the property referred in the family settlement Ex. PW1/A was having value of less than 100/-rupees on 01.09.1959.
The Ex. PW1/A concludes that this has been decided among the parties. In other words, the parties to the family settlement by virtue of Ex. PW1/A allegedly distributed the property through family settlement. Ex. PW1/A is not the written memorandum of past transaction, rather the property was allegedly distributed between the parties through Ex. PW1/A dated 01.09.1959. In Tek Bahadur Bhujil Vs. Debi Singh Bhujil and Others, has been noticed. The Supreme Court in Tek Bahadur Bhujil on facts observed that document is nothing but a memorandum of what had taken place and, therefore, is not a document which would require compulsory registration u/s 17 of the Act. In the present case, Ex. PW1/A on facts is not memorandum of what had taken place in past, but is a document vide which the property was allegedly distributed. Therefore, in absence of registration of Ex.PW1/A, the appellants cannot take benefit of Ex. PW1/A in support of their plea that through Ex. PW1/A the property was distributed among heirs of late Mansha Ram alias Munshi Ram. The substantial question of law No.1 in RSA No. 473 of 2001 and in RSA No. 477 of 2001 is decided against the appellants.
The substantial questions of law No.2,3 in RSA Nos. 473, 477 of 2001 and substantial question of law No. 1 and 2 in RSA No. 519 of 2001 are inter-connected, therefore, both of them in all the three appeals are taken up collectively for determination. The appellants have projected the case that they are children of deceased Mansha Ram from his second wife Smt. Gauran Devi. It has also not been denied that Ramesh Chand and Chaman Lal, respondents, are the sons of Kishan Dutt, who was son of Mansha Ram from first wife. According to appellants, all the heirs of Mansha Ram are entitled to distribute the property in equal shares. On the contrary, the case of Ramesh Chand and Chaman Lal, respondents, is that their father Kishan Dutt was the son of Mansha Ram from first wife. Mansha Ram died before coming into force Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The parties are governed by Agriculture Custom of Kangra district. At the time of opening of succession of Mansha Ram, they were governed by rule of succession prevalent at that time along with Agriculture Custom of District Kangra which provided that in case deceased male had left two widows, then the property would be divided among the children of two widows, children of one widow will get 1/2 share and children of other widow will get other 1/2 share. This rule of succession is known as ''Choondavand'' as against ''Paggvand''. It is further case of Ramesh Chand and Chaman Lal that under the rule of ''Choondavand'', Kishan Dutt would get half share of the property left by his father Mansha Ram being the son of Mansha Ram from first wife. The appellants would get the other half share in the property left by Mansha Ram in equal shares being the children of Mansha Ram from second wife Smt. Gauran Devi.
The appellants in the plaint have not specifically pleaded that before coming into force of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the estate of Mansha Ram would be governed by which rule of succession. In Middletone Digest of Customary Law in Kangra District, rule of ''Choondavand'' was generally followed. In Section V of succession, the answer to question No. 35 along with illustration has been re-produced by learned Additional District Judge in the impugned judgment, the reproduction of question and its answer has not been contested on behalf of the appellants which is as follows:
Q.35:If a man dies leaving a widow or widows son or sons, daughter or daughters brother or relatives upon whom will the inheritance devolve?
Ans:In such cases the inheritance passes to the sons and as the Chundavand rule is generally followed in this district a sonless widow is entitled to a share of her deceased husband''s property. Daughters do not get any share if they have got brothers to succeed their father.
The learned counsel for the appellants has heavily relied Bui @ Bur Singh and others vs. Bela Singh AIR 1947 Lah 233 and has submitted that rule is in favour of ''Paggvand'' in Gurdaspur District. The rule of ''Choondavand'' is an unjust and inequitable rule of succession and it is not surprising to find that the tribes have gradually abandoned in favour of just rule of ''Paggvand''. It has been submitted that the land is adjacent to Gurdaspur District in Punjab, therefore, law laid down in AIR 1947 Lah 233 is applicable in the instant case. It has also been submitted that the question of custom has to be examined with reference to the date when succession opened to the estate of the deceased.
The appellants in their plaint have not pleaded that rule of ''Paggvand'' is applicable to them and they inherited the property left behind by late Mansha Ram under this rule. On the contrary, the respondents have taken the plea that they are governed by Agriculture Custom of Kangra District where ''Choondavand'' rule is applicable. It has been stated by learned counsel for the parties that land in dispute is in Tehsil Nurpur which always remained part of Kangra District and was never part of District Gurdaspur. The rule of ''Paggvand'' referred to in AIR 1947 Lah 233 is applicable in District Gurdaspur of Punjab. Once the land in question was never part of District Gurdaspur of Punjab then the law laid down regarding rule of ''Paggvand'' in AIR 1947 Lah 233 is not applicable to the land and agriculturists residing, living in District Kangra from generations to generation.
The two Courts below on facts have recorded findings that the parties are governed by rule of ''Choondavand'' as applicable to agriculturists in District Kangra and not by ''Paggvand''. The findings of the two Courts below have not been pointed out to be based on some inadmissible evidence nor it has been pointed out that any material evidence which goes to the root of the case has been ignored by two Courts below. There is concurrent finding of fact recorded by two Courts below that the parties are governed by rule of ''Choondavand'' applicable to the agriculturists in District Kangra at the relevant time when succession opened to the estate of Mansha Ram. The substantial questions of law No. 2 and 3 in RSA Nos. 471 and 473 of 2001 and substantial questions of law No. 1 and 2 in RSA No. 519 of 2001 are decided against the appellants. There is no merit in the appeals.
In view of above discussion, all the three appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.