DIGEST OF CUSTOMARY LAW

DELHI DISTRICT (old)

* Answer to Question No. 44.__

“If there be more sons than one, they inherit in equal shares. No regard is had to uterine descent ; sons of all wives inherit equally. The general custom is pagvand but in certain Jat villages chundavand custom prevails. The difference of the ages of the sons does not give them unequal shares in inheritance, not is any distinction made as to the caste or got of their mothers.

Chundavand rule applies.

72 P. R. 1915 – Among Jats of Mauza Kakorla, Delhi Tahsil.

=31 I: C. 241.

A. I. R. 1935 Lah. 538. . . Jats of Jaunti, Delhi Province.

=157 I. C. 780.

DERA GHAZI KHAN DISTRICT

** Answer to Question No. 29.__

“Neither Muhammadan nor Hindu pay any regard to uterine descent or to the caste or tribe of the mother. And the only exception to the rule that all sons take equal shares without regard to age are (1) a custom in the families of the Chiefs of the Mazari and Drishak tribes in the Rajanpur Tahsil by which the eldest son, i.e., the Chief, receives a rather larger share than his brothers and (2) the custom of “sawaya” which prevails among the Hindus of the Rajanput Tahsil and of the Jampur Pachahd. By this custom the eldest son receives a share which is one-fourth larger than the share of any other son, e.g., if there are two sons their shares are 5/9 and 4/9 and if three 5/13, 4/13 and 4/13. The

formula supposing there to be N sons would be elder son’s share 5/5+4(n =1), share of each younger son. 4/5+4(n =1)

DERA ISMAIL KHAN DISTRICT

*** Answer to Question No. 2 – Section V.

“All tribes except Babars and Biluch Pathans in Paniala. –

All the sons inherit equally. No regard is paid to their respective ages. The caste of a wife is never taken into consideration, and when the sons are the issue of different wives, the division is according to the pagvand system.

FEROZEPUR DISTRICT

* Answer to Question No. 36 __

The general rule is that the sons divide the inheritance per capita (pagvand) without any regard to uterine descent, the tribe or caste of the mother, or age.

The following groups, however, state that they follow the chundavand rule (division per stirpes) – The Siddhu Barars of the villages of Udekaran, Bhallaiana, Thandewala and Gulabwala in Muktsar Tahsil, the Niazi Pathans of Malwaland the surrounding villages, and the Harike Wattus of Kakhanwali and Rorranwali in Fazilka.

The Dogars of Fazilka state that the sons of a wife of another tribe are not entitled to inherit.

In the family of the Sodhis of Buttar an unequal distribution of both the lands and the jagir has taken place, though the distribution is not truly chundavand.

In the jagirdar family of Jhumba (Jai Sidhus of Mukatsar) the eldest son takes a larger share of the jagir income.”

Pagvand rule applies.

C. A. 340 of 1871 – Jats of the Ferozepur District.

105 P. R. 1876 – Bagri Jats of Ferozepur District.

101 P. R. 1879

125 P. R. 1884 Sidhu Barar Jats of Moga Tahsil.

11 P. R. 1889 – Dogras of Ferozepur District.

178 P. R. 1889 – Sanghara Muhammadan Jats of Zira Tahsil.

4 P. R. 1893 – Jats of Mauza Raman, Moga Tahsil.

1928, 10 Lah. 694 – Siddu Barar Jats of village Gulabewala, Muktsar Tahsil

(entry in Riwaj-I-am in favour of Chundavand).

GUJRANWALA DISTRICT.

* Answer to Question No. 34.__

“All tribes –

On the death of a father, all his sons inherit equally without any regard either to their either to their age of to their mother’s caste according to pagvand rule.”

Pagvand rule applies.

148 P. R. 1908 – Samra Jats of Hafizabad Tahsil.

GUJRAT DISTRICT

* Answer to Question No. 44. __

“Nearly all Muhammadan tribes—

All sons inherit in equal shares and pagvand system prevails.

Rajputs, Chibs and Manhas follow the chundavand, but in some families the custom of pagvand is found. Raja Muhammad Khan and others say pagvand, but really they, admit it has been chundavand up to now, apparently Muhammad Khan’s family are an exception.

(a) The answer is given above.

(b) No regard is paid to the caste or tribe of the mother.

(c) No regard is paid to the age of the sons.

Chundavand rule applies.

C. A. 380 of 1883

77 P. A. 1885 Chibs of Gujrat.

GURDASPUR DISTRICT

* Answer to Question No. 2, Part II --

“No regard is had to the age of the sons or the got of their mother. The following tribes refuse to give any share in inheritance to the issue of a woman belonging to a different tribe :-

Shakargarh. – Brahman, Pathan, Hindu Rajput, Gujar, Saini and Mallah.

Batala. – Brahman, Khatri and Pathan Muhammadan and Hindu Rajput.

Gurdaspur. – Gujar, Brahman, Bhat.

Pathankot. – Hindu and Muhammadan Rajput, Brahman, Chhang, Labana, Saini and Gujar.

The following tribes that have hitherto followed the chundavand rules wish to maintain it for the future :-

Pathankot. – (1) Hindu Rajput, (2) Brahman, (3) Chhang, (4) Labana, (5) Saini, and (6) Gujar.

Shakargarh. – (1) Brahman, excepting the Mohyals, (2) Hindu Rajput excepting the Katals, (3) Saini.

The following tribes with to give up the chundavand rule while admitting that it has been hitherto follow :-

Pathankot. - (1) Hindu Jats, (2) Muhammadan Jats.

Shakargarh. – (1) Sayyads, (2) Hindu Jats, (3) Muhammadan Jats, (4) Rajputs Belonging to the Katal got, (5) Muhammadan Rajputs, (6) Arains.

Gurdaspur. – (1) Hindu Rajputs, (2) Brahmans, (3) Khatris, (4) Bedis and Sodis, (5) Kalals.

The Muhammadan Rajputs of the Pathankot tahsil could not agree among themselves as to whether or not the chundavand rule that has been hitherto followed among then should be maintained. The Gujars of the Shakargarh tahsil state that the pagvand rule which they for the first time accepted at last settlement, has now come to be generally followed. The Khokhar Rajputs of the village Khiala of the Pathankot tahsil, who had their custom recorded as pagvand at last settlement, state that the custom is still the same. The remaining tribes of all the tahsils state that the pagvand rule had been always followed among them and should be maintained.”

Pagvand rule applies.

C. A. 659 of 1875 Randhawa Jats of mauza Talwandi, Batala Tahsil.

C. A. 1056 of 1877

62 P. A. 1885 – Padda Jats of mauza Jhawar, Gurdaspur Tahsil.

63 P. A. 1885 – Sidhu Jats of Kot Jagraj, Gurdaspur Tahsil.

14 P. A. 1909 – Gujars of Hakla, Tahsil Shakargarh.

56 P. R. 1911 – Sidhu Muhammadan Jats of villages Pakhowali Gurdaspur Tahsil.

71 I. C. 864 – Hindu Jats of village Rajade, Gurdaspur Tahsil.

A. I. R. 1947 Lah. 233 = 48 P. L. 521 = Hundal Jats of Gurdaspur District Completely abandoned the rule of chundavand by 1942 and adopted the rule of pagvand in matters of succession.

Lachman Singh v. Thakar Singh (decided by the Divisional Judge on 13^th August 1907) – Hindu Jats of village Sukhowal, Tahsil .

Fathu v. Natha (decided by the D. J. on 18^th August 1902) – Arians of village Kila Tek Singh, Tahsil Batala.

Dava Singh v. Bishan Singh (decided by the Hony. Civil Judge, 1^st class on 31^st March 1909) – Hindu Jats of village Naushera Majja Singh, Tahsil Gurdaspur.

Sardar v. Allah Dad (decided by E.A.C., Munsif 1^st class, on 30^th Novermber 1923) – Muhammadan Jats of village Bhattian, Tahsil Gurdaspur.

Nur Muhammad v. Fazil Din (decided by E.A.C., Munsif 1^st class on 20^th June 1892) – Gujars of village Kahne, Tahsil Gurdaspur (Customary Law of the Gurdaspur District, pages 23, 24).

Chundavand rule applies.

84 P. R. 1893 – Samrai Jats, Tahsil Batala.

5 P. R. 1908 – Sarai Jats of village Dholpur, Batala Tahsil.

A. I. R. 1932 Lah. 222 – Mohammadan Bhatti Rajputs, Batala Tahsil.

Mangu v. Hukman (Decided by D. J. on 14^th May 1906) – Hindu Jats of Village Dholpur, Tahsil Batala.

Labhu v. Ilhi Baksh (decided by D. J. on 8^th October 1901) – Muhammadan Jats of village Bakhariwal Tahsil Gurdaspur.

Nizam Din v. Jahana (decided by E.A.C., Munsif 1^st Class, on 5^th June 1896) -

Gujars of village Baqarpur, Tahsil Shakargarh.

(Customary Law of the Gurdaspur District, pages 23 and 24).

GURGAON DISTRICT

* Answer to Question No. 2 – Part II – Section I.

Where the sons inherit, and there are more sons than one. –

(1) Age – In no tribe is any regard paid to the age of the sons so that the eldest or youngest son should take more or less than his brothers. As far as age is concerned, all share equally.

(2) Caste – In no tribe is any regard had to the caste or tribe of the mother, provided that she was of a tribe with which marriage is permissible. So far as the caste of the mother is concerned, all the sons share equally.

Note. – There is some doubt as to whether the son of a Rajput Musalman by a woman of another tribe whom he has married by nikah would inherit or not. The Rajputs say he would not.

(3) Uterine descent. – No regard is paid to uterine descent. All the legitimate sons, whether descended from the same or different mothers, take equal shares (Banya, Dhusar, Taga, Kayath, Agri, Mallah, Jat Hindu and Musalman, Fakir, Brahman, Gujar, Gaurwa, Meo, Khanzada, Sayad, Sheikh, Mughal, Pathan, Beloch, Ahir, and some families of Rajputs). But generally among the Rajputs, among a few families of Ahirs (the same who do not allow the re-marriage of widows), and a few villages of Jats and a here and there among the Meos, Khanzadas and Beloch, the inheritance is divided among the sons according to the number of mothers, the sons, however few, of one mother taking as much as the sons, however many, of another.

Note. – As this question of Maon bat, or division according to the number of mothers, is very rare in comparison with the custom of Bhaiyon bat, or division according to the number of sons without regard to the number of mothers, and as it seems contrary in a sense to equity, and no reasonable ground can be assigned for the anomaly, very clear proof of the custom should be required before it is allowed.”

HAZARA DISTRICT

** “In the presence of sons, collateral heirs are in every case excluded from inheriting any portion of the father’s estate. Even in a tribe whose custom ordinarily gives only a small plot of land to the son of a wife of baseblood, such a son, if he is father’s only son, would take the whole estate to the exclusion of collaterals.

“A not unfrequent incident in the customs of the Upper Punjab is a rule which draws a distinction between the sons by wives of the same tribe, or of a tribe of equal blood, and the sons of wives of inferior origin.

“In the following tribes and families of Hazara, no such distinction prevails, the sons of all wives being treated alike, viz. –

Mishwanis .. .. Kagan Sayads

Kirrals .. .. Malliars.

Gujars .. .. Hindus.

Awans .. .. Members of the menial classes who hold Land.

Jaduns .. ..

Swathis .. ..

In all these cases a father’s estate is divided among his sons after his death per capita, each son taking an equal share. In the following tribes distinctions are drawn between the male issue of wives of the same or equal blood and those wives of inferior blood: -

Tarkhelis .. ..

Turins .. ..

Dilazaks .. .. Among whom the sons inherit per capita,

Dhunds .. .. pagvand.

Tunalis .. ..

Utmanzais .. ..

Turks .. .. Among whom the sons inherit per stirpes,

Sayads, other than the Kangan chundavand.

Sayads ..

It will be useful to give a short account of the distinctions referred to.

“The Tarkhelis only give one or two ploughs of land to the sons of a wife not of Pathan blood. They class all blood as base (kamin) which is not Pathan. The sons by Pathan wives inherit equally per capita.

“The Turins similarly put off with a small plot of land the sons by a ‘kamin’ wife in the presence of sons of purer blood; they include in the term ‘kamin’ the menial and artisan classes, e.g., weavers, leather workers, carpenters, smiths, &e. If there is issue by two wives, of whom one wife is of Turin of Pathan blood, or the daughter of a chief or leading man in another tribe, and the other wife comes of an ordinary family in any of the other agricultural races (Hindki), the share taken by each son of the Hindki wife will only be half the size of that taken by each son of the other wife. With these exceptions the division of the heritage will be per capita.

“Among the Dilazaks, Dhunds, and Tanaolis, the sons all inherit in equal share per capita, subject to the following exception. Where a father has left issue by two wives of whom one wife was of his own tribe, or of any other ‘waris’ (proprietary) tribe, and the other wife was of a tribe who are not owners of the soil, the share taken by each son of the latter wife will only be half the size of that taken by each son of the pure ‘waris’ blood. In the Tanaoli tribe the sons of such a wife not uncommonly receive only small allotments (guzaras) instead of any defined share.

“Among the Utmanzails the sons inherit per stirpes. If the several wives by whom male issue servives were all of Pathan blood, each stirps takes an equal share. If one of the wives was of Hindki blood, her stirps takes only half the share taken by each Pathan stirps. The Utmanzai class as Hindkis all who are not Pathans, not excepting Tanaolis.

“Among the Turks the sons also inherit per stirpes. It is admitted that a stirps by a wife whose father was a chief or leading man in adjacent ‘waris’ tribes takes an equal share with the stirps of a Turk wife; but whether the stirps of a wife of other alien blood would also be entitled to a full share in the presence of a stirps of pure blood is disputed.

“The Sayads of the district, except those of Kagan, class as pure blood Sayad families, Pathans, the Tanaoli chiefs, families, and the families of leading men of other tribes, If there is male issue by two wives, one of pure blood and one of inferior blood, the stirps of the latter only takes half the share taken by the stirps of the former.

“In every case in which the division is per stirpes, the sons of each stirps inherit equally among themselves.

* * * * *

RECOGNITION OF CHIEFSHIP IN FAMILY

RULES OF SUCCESSION

“In the Turkheli chiefs’ family a certain portion of the property is known as dastar and a certain portion as wirasat. The former devolves integrally to his successor in the chiefship, ordinarily the eldest son; the latter devolves according to the ordinary rules of inheritance.

“Similarly, in the family of the Gujar Mokadams of Kot-Najibulla, the old jagir villages devolve integrally with the jagir and chiefship, the rest of the property going according to the ordinary rules of injheritance.

“There is some reason to believe that in the families of the Karral Sardars of Dewal-Monal and of Durban the chiefs take a larger share in the inheritance as compared with the other brothers; but the question is not likely to be cleared up until it comes up for judicial decision.

“The same remark applies to the Tanaoli Jagirdar of Bir and Shingi, and to the Bamba Chief of Boi.

“There is a strong presumption in favour of the existence of a special custom in the family of the Swathi Chief of Garhi Habibulla. It appears that in this family for three generations past the successor to the chiefship has dealt as he chose with the whole paternal estate, giving to his brothers such portions as he thought fit, and keeping the greater part of the property himself. The collaterals or the chief, known as Khan-Khails, treat their property in the same manner as the rest of the Swathi tribe, with one exception, viz., they state that the sons of wives of alien tribes (not Swathi), are not entitled to more than small subsistence grants in the presence of sons by another wife of Swathi blood.

“In the Statement of Tribal Customs of the Turk family it is recorded that in the families of the two old Rajas (of whom the representatives now are Rajas Haiyat and Fatteh Khan), the chattels, cattle or houses, and lands cultivated by the Rajas themselves, devolve according to the ordinary custom of the tribe, but that the lands under tenants go in entirety to the eldest son.

“The estate of the Agrore chief devolves in entirety with the Agrore, chiefship; the other heirs have no claim to any share in it.

“The Holdings of sub-proprietors in the Agrore Valley, excepting those who own charitable seris (seri-khairat), lapse to the chief on the failure of direct male issue,”

1923, 73 I. C. 675 – Hazara District, Chundavand rule applies. A. I. R. Lah. 1 – Tarkheli Pathans of Hazara District-rule of chundavand applies.

HISSAR DISTRICT

* Answer to Question No. 42. -

“Jats Bagri, Dogars, Jat Sikhs, Pathans, Gujars, Musalman Jats, Bishnois and Mahajans. –

On the death of a father, his sons inherit equally without any regard to their age. The pagvand rule is universal, and chundavand is most exceptional. The sons by the wife of a man’s own tribe being illegal, her sons cannot inherit anything.

Jats Deswali and Pachadas. –

“No regard is paid to uterine descent, and all the sons inherit equally ……..But in few cases. Where a man had more wives than one and all of them had a male issue, the property was inherited not in equal shares, but according to the Chundavand system ………...Still among these people also pagvand is the general rule.

Musalman Rajputs. –

“The universal rule is pagvand among the Rajputs of Khera Rangharan, Bas Khurd, Bijan, Lamba, Nangthala, Sohu, Talwandi Rana, Nangal, Akanwali, Prabhuwala and Khai; but a few families in some scattered villages follow the chundavand rule, in which all the sons by one mother, however numerous, take the same amount as all the sons by another mother, however few.

Hindu Jats. –

“As Jats Bagri, except that Rajputs of got Jatu, follow the chundavand rule : while among all other gots of Rajputs the sons inherit in equal shares, from whatever mothers they were born.

Brahmans. –

“As Jats Bagri, etc., except that Brahmans of the Hansi Tahsil and of some villages in the Hissar Tahsil follow the pagvand rule. In the rest of the tract the chundavand rule prevails.

Pagvand rule applies.

81 P. R. 1884 – Acharjs of Bhiwani.

Chundavand rule applies.

143 P. R. 1892 – Sidhu Bharar Jats of Mauza Badladba, Hissar District.

HOSHIARPUR DISTRICT

* Answer to Question No. 33. -

“The general rule is that no regard is paid to uterine descent or to the age of the sons, all sons take an equal share, i.e., they follow the pagvand rule. The Bains Jats of Mahalpur and the family of the Sirdars of Kathgarh, however, follow chundavand rule. Jarial Rajputs of Dasuya Tahsil and the Rajputs of Zahura also follow chundavand ; hitherto the Dod Rajputs of Garhshanker Tahsil have followed chundavand but now they state they wish to adopt pagvand rule. As already stated under Question 32 the families of the Rana of Manaswal and of Rai Wazir Khan of Bhangala follow the rule of primogeniture. The following two Muhammadan and one Hindu Rajput families have special customs : -

Rai Abdul Haq of Banna : Out of the property two villages Aima and Chahal go by integral descent to the eldest son who may give maintenance in lieu to his younger brothers.

Rai Bambhu Khan of Garhshankar : 3 ghumaos of land belonging to the family in Garshankar and the property in Mauza Bhajal go to the eldest son ;

Rai Bishan Chand of Balachaur : the talukdari right in Mauza Dhaul go to the eldest son.

The Pathans of Bassi Ali and Jahan Khelan and the Awans of Balhada follow chundavand. Changs also have hitherto generally followed chundavand, but many of them have put in formal applications stating that they will follow pagvand in future.

As regards the caste or tribe of the mother generally the answer is that there is no custom of marriage with a woman outside the tribe. Hindu Jats of Dasuya Tahsil say that if a wife is not formally received into the got of her husband her children cannot succeed. Gujars, Pathans, Arains, Sainis, Chhangs, Dogars, Khatris, Kalals, Sayids, Sheikhs and Dod Raiputs of Tahsil Garshanker state that the issue of a woman of another tribe does not succeed but is only entitled to maintenance.

Remark. – This question, so far as it relates to the effects of marriage outside the tribe, must be read with Question No. 11, as they are intimately connected with each other. There is little doubt that the practice is now much more tolerant that the answers abstracted above would lead one to suppose. Generally it may be said among Muhammadans that the issue of a married woman, i.e., with whom her husband has been united by the nikah ceremony will not be excluded from the succession. Among Hindus too there are many instances where the issue of a woman married from another tribe has succeeded.

2. It is clear the tendency is to abandon the chundavand system of succession.

Note. – The family of the Rana of Manswal and that of Rai Wazir Khan of Bhangala follow the rule of primogeniture, younger sons being entitled to maintenance only.

Pagvand rule applies.

45 P. R. 1890 – Naru Rajputs of Hoshirpur Tahsil.

11 P. R. 1891 – Muhammadan Jats of Hoshirpur District.

I. L. R. 1922 Lah, 452 – Jaswal Rajputs of Deoli, Una Tahsil.

= 67 I. C, 608.

Chundavand rule applies.

31 P. R. 1903 – Naru Rajputs of Tahsil Hoshiarpur.

“In 45 P. R. 1890, it was held that among the Naru Rajputs of the Hoshiarpur District the rule of pagvand prevails, but this was prior to adjustment of the question of onus by the Full Bench decision in 4 P. R. 1891.

50 P. R, 1915 – Malkotra Rajputs of village Panjawar, Una Tahsil.

=29 I. C. 650

=6 P. R. 1916.

JHANG DISTRICT

Pagvand rule is generally followed.

50 P. R. 1909 – Sials of Jhang District, pagvand rule applies.

JHELUM DISTRICT

* Answer to Question No. 40. -

“All tribes, except as noted below. –

No regard is paid to uterine descent. The custom is pagvand and all sons share equally.

Gakkhars of Badagran, Bakrala, Basawa, Bhangala Bheth, Chukiam, Domeli, Kalri Karunta Iskandral, Khariot, Kutian, Lahri, Mutial, Padhri, Rasila Kalan, Rasila Khurd, Salihal, Sarula, Umral. –

The rule is chundavand, the inheritance being distributed according to the number of the mothers.

Note. – The question how far the custom of chundavand really prevails in these villages could not be satisfactorily cleared up by summary enquiry. The Record of Rights of the 1^st Regular Settlement asserts this rule in the following villages and perhaps one or two more; Bhangala, Bad agran, Bakrala, Domeli, Kalri, Karunta, Khariot, Mutial, Padhri, Salihal, Umral.

Apparently recent instances of inheritance according to the rule of chundavand have occurred in Baragowah, Baral, Domeli, Jhanot, Mutial, Padhri. And the rule has been upheld in judicial proceedings in cases from Domeli and Jhanot, but the files could not be found at short notice.

Khokhars of Pind Dadan Khan state that their custom was incorrectly recorded at last settlement as chundavand, for particular reasons at that time. For the future they desire it to be recorded that their custom is pagvand, and in reality always has been so.”

* Answer to Question No. 4. -

“Sayyads, Mughals, Awans of Pind Dadan Khan, and miscellaneous Musalmans:-

The sons get equal shares whatever the tribe of their respective mothers.

Gakkhars, Janjuas of Pind Dadan Khan (except Dandot), Khakhars, Jalaps, Phaphras. –

The sons by a wife of inferior tribe get maintenance only. (The Jalaps add that a battadar son Should not get more than 10 acres and they do get less : but there is no established custom of this kind. One Duhman Khan of Chak Danial disagreed with the other from interested motives and said that all sons share alike.

Janjuas of Jhelum Tahsil. –

The sons by a wife of inferior birth gets maintenance, or else one-fourth of a full share.

Kassars and Kahuts. –

There is difference of opinion; many deny the correctness of entry at last settlement, that a high born son takes a large share.

Note. – In Mauzah Mari amongst Kassars in the family of Muhammad Khan, lambardar, by order of Tahsildar at Mutation, the sons by an Awan wife got more than the sons by a Mirasi wife.

Jats, Gujars, Mairs (some dissenting) and Awans of Tallagang. –

There is no definite custom but the son by an inferior wife ought to get a smaller share. (No instance given where this has been done : and amongst the Awans at least there are instances to the contrary.

Hindus. –

Sons by low-caste mothers are sald to be unknown; if there were any, they would not inherit any property.

Note. – To the question what wives are considered low-born, there is generally no clear reply. The Janjuas say that Gakkhar. Khokhar. Rajpur, Khiwa, Kassar, Minhas and Mair wives are not low-born; but the list is probably not exhaustive. The Jats and Phaphras say that a kamin wife is low-born but that a wife of any zamindar trible is not low-born. The Jalaps say that low-born wives are those not of the Khiwa, Bharath, Janjusa, Gakkhar, Khokhar, Kallas tribes. Others give indefinite answers such as that a wife of any inferior tribe is considered low-born. See also replies to question above.”

* Answer to Question No. 42. -

“All tribes –

No regard is had to the age of the sons except in the following instances : -

(a) Darapur family : the Malik or head of the family gets one-fourth as haq sardari and the rest is divided between him and the others in the ordinary way.

(b) Chakri : the head of the family gets all the land in the villages of Bajwala Khurd, Dilawar and Kotli Sayyadan, which would have come to the share of his grandfather Duhman Khan; his uncles have no share in the land in these estates.

(c) Nara : the head of the family gets one-fourth as haq sardari, in addition to

his share in the remaining three-fourth ; this extra share he is not at liberty to alienate.

Note. – As the head has in recent generations been an only son there has been no occasion to act on this rule.

(d) Pind Savikka : the head of the family of Sherbaz, lambardar, gets a double share.

Note. – This appears to be a statement of a custom which it is desired to introduce and not of one which has been recently acted upon.

(e) Sherpur : in the family of Dewan Kasim Ali, he as head of the family took half of his father’s property, his three brothers sharing the other half, a similar custom has been acted upon in a junior branch of the same family.

(f) Baghanwala : the head of the family takes a larger share as haq sardari.

(g) Watli and Kusak : the Sultan as head of the family takes a larger share. He also claims to be soul owner of the fort and of certain mangoe trees near the Kusak bungalow.

(h) Dalwal : the head of the family has a larger share in the dayakki allowances of 10 per cent of the revenue of the Kahun, a Government grant, which is however subject to the ordinary rules of inheritance. He has no extra share in the land.

(i) Kot Sarang : the haq sardari rule certainly used to be in force in this family, and probably is so still to some extent, though it is not clear to what extent.

Khokhars. –

In the Ahmadabad family the head formerly took the whole of the property, the rest getting maintenance only, but the late head Sardar Khan made his brother Sher Khan owner of one-third of the Ahmadabad land, retaining the whole in other villages.

Jalaps –

In Chak Shadi, in the family of Gul Mawaz Khan, the son selected by father to be Sardar gets such larger share as the father may appoint.

Note. – Gulmawaz Khan wishes that whatever extra share he may assign to the son approved by him shall be held in perpetuity by the head of the family in super-session of the existing custom.

Mairs –

In the family of Khan Bahadur Chaudhri Aurangzeb Khan of Chakwal, if there are two brothers the head of the family takes two shares and his brother one; if there are three or more brothers, he takes half the property and the others share the rest. This applies to the property in Chakwal itself only. He also takes the Nazrana dues in Tatral.

Awans –

(a) In Tallagang Khas the head of the family Malik Fazl takes a double share in the Murat property, but shares equally with his brothers in the Tallagang property. A similar custom was once acted on in another branch of the family (Fazl Ilahi’s) but is said to be no longer in force.

(b) In Tamman; Nur Khan (grandfather of Abbas Khan) took four-fifths (three- fifth as haq sardari), one brother getting one-fifth and another maintenceance only. His father Khudadad Khan took a double share as compared with his brother, in Nur Khan’s property.

Note. – The present custom seems to be that the head of the family takes a double share in the property of his predecessor. But see Punjab Record No. 22 of 1899, Abbas Khan v. Ghulam Mohammad, etc.

(C) In the family of Muhammadan Afzal of Jabbi the head is said to take a larger shares.

Note. – No such custom appears ever to have been acted upon in this family.

(d) Lawa : Sultan Mubariz, lambardar, took an extra share of 478 kanals as haq sardari ; this being recently disputed by his brothers he agreed to give up half of it to them.

(e) Lawa : Sher Muhammad, lambardar, at first took a double share; there have been changes since, the result of which is that he shares equally with his surviving brothers, taking in addition 20 bighas (the mafi land only).

Phaphras –

The head of the family of the late Muhammad Baksh of Sauwal is believed to be sold owner of the mafi land, a considerable area which he holds, but some members of the family his ritht to it.

Gujars –

In the family of the Fatteh Muhammad of Kala, the father can appoint a larger share for the son whom he elects as fit to succeed him as Chaudhri.

Note. – The custom of haq sardari used to be more common than it is now; there are several families amongst the Mairs (e.g., Kot Khilan and Ghugh) and some amongst Awans where the rule was in force, but has been given up in recent times,”

Chundavand rule applies.

A. I. R. 1923 Lah. 604 – Gakhars of Bara Gowath, Jhelum Tahsil

=84 I. C. 565.

Contents Next