Punjab & Haryana High Court Restores Trial Court Decree; Holds Muslim Widow Inherits Absolute Estate Unless Restrictive Custom Strictly Proved
Case Name: Jameel Ahmed and Others v. Zarib Hassan and Others
Date of Judgment: 09 February 2026
Citation: RSA No.691 of 1999
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that under Section 5 of the Punjab Laws Act, 1872, succession among Mohammedans is governed by Mohammedan personal law unless a contrary custom is strictly proved. The Court held that Mohammedan law does not recognise the concept of a limited or life estate and that, in the absence of strict proof of a restrictive custom specific to the locality and community, a Muslim widow inherits property as an absolute owner competent to alienate it.
Summary: The Regular Second Appeal was filed by defendants Nos.1 to 3 assailing the judgment dated 22.02.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, whereby the First Appellate Court reversed the dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court.
The plaintiff Zarib Hassan instituted a suit for declaration and possession in respect of 76 kanal 03 marla of land situated in village Muzafat Khurd, Tehsil Jagadhri. The plaintiff pleaded that the land originally belonged to Mohammad Baksh and devolved upon his descendants, ultimately to Smt. Jano, widow of Hayatoo, who died issueless. It was pleaded that the parties, being Mohammedan Gujjars and agriculturists, were governed by customary law, under which a widow inherited only a life estate without power of alienation. On this basis, the plaintiff challenged the registered gift deed dated 28.07.1977 executed by Smt. Jano in favour of defendants Nos.1 to 3.
The contesting defendants denied the existence of such restrictive custom and pleaded that the property was self-acquired in the hands of Hayatoo and that Smt. Jano inherited it as absolute owner, competent to execute the gift deed.
The Trial Court held that the suit property was non-ancestral, that Smt. Jano inherited it upon the death of her husband, and that the specific custom pleaded by the plaintiff was not proved. The suit was dismissed. The First Appellate Court reversed the decree, holding that Punjab customary law governed agricultural tribes irrespective of religion and that a widow held only a limited estate even in non-ancestral property.
In second appeal, the High Court examined the legal position regarding proof of custom. It reiterated that custom is an exception to personal law and must be strictly proved as a question of fact. Relying upon Supreme Court precedents including Ujagar Singh v. Jeo, Thakur Gokal Chand v. Parvin Kumari, Mara v. Mst. Nikko @ Punjab Kaur, and Sant Ram v. Labh Singh, the Court held that no distinction exists between general and special custom for purposes of proof and that courts cannot take judicial notice where conflicting instances exist.
The Court observed that Mohammedan law does not recognise the doctrine of limited or life estate and that an heir, including a widow, inherits property absolutely. It further held that proof of custom in one district or community cannot be mechanically applied to another locality. In the present case, the defendants had produced several contrary local instances from Tehsil Jagadhri demonstrating that Mohammedan widows had alienated property as absolute owners. The First Appellate Court failed to consider these instances.
Holding that the alleged restrictive custom was not strictly proved, the Court concluded that Mohammedan personal law applied. Consequently, Smt. Jano was competent to execute the registered gift deed dated 28.07.1977, and the plaintiff, being a collateral, had no vested or reversionary right.
Decision: The Regular Second Appeal was allowed. The judgment and decree dated 22.02.1999 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jagadhri, were set aside, and the judgment and decree dated 29.08.1996 passed by the Trial Court were restored. The suit stood dismissed.