Shimla: Himachal Pradesh high court has held that in polyandrous marriages governed by customary law, the property of a deceased husband is inherited by the surviving brother or brothers and not by the children of the deceased until the earlier generation is no longer alive.The ‘principle of coparcenary’ under Hindu law does not apply to such cases, HC said, adding that this dispute is governed by customary law and not by traditional Mitakshara Law (one of the two principal schools of Hindu law).The bench of Justice Rakesh Kainthla delivered the ruling while dismissing a second appeal challenging the findings of a trial court and the first appellate court in a case pertaining to Rohru tehsil of Shimla district.The dispute arose from a suit filed by the sons of Kali Ram, who sought a declaration that they were entitled to a share of their deceased grandfather Madan Singh’s ancestral property and challenged a family settlement as illegal.Madan Singh and his brother Devi Saran had a common wife, Naro Devi, under the local custom of fraternal polyandry. The plaintiffs contended that their father, Kali Ram, was Madan Singh’s only heir so they were entitled to inherit his share. They also alleged that a family arrangement had unfairly deprived them of their rightful share.The defendants, however, argued that the inheritance mutation in favour of Devi Saran had been sanctioned in accordance with the prevailing custom after Madan Singh’s death, long before the Hindu Succession Act came into force. They also maintained that the property had already been partitioned with the consent of the parties.While examining the issue, high court referred to historical sources, including Punjab State Gazetteers (1910) and Himachal Pradesh’s first chief minister Yashwant Singh Parmar’s book ‘Polyandry in Himalayas’ (1975), which document the customary practices of polyandry in parts of present-day Himachal, including Rohru and Kinnaur.The court observed that these customs recognise succession by survivorship among joint husbands of a woman rather than inheritance by their children. “Therefore, the plaintiffs cannot claim any right in the property of their father till the death of all the brothers of the co-marriage,” the court underlined.Holding that the dispute was governed by customary law and not by traditional Hindu or Mitakshara law, the court ruled that the surviving brother was the lawful heir to the jointly owned property. Since the plaintiffs had no enforceable right during the lifetime of Devi Saran, their challenge to the mutation and partition was held to be without merit. Consequently, the high court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgments of the lower courts.MSID:: 132683369 413 |
