Under Punjab agricultural custom, a son does not acquire an interest, share, or right in the ancestral property held by the father merely by reason of his birth, and a father can disinherit a son only by means of a will or other writing of testamentary character.

Ranjit Singh Sarkaria, J.

1. The following pedigree-table will be helpful in understanding the facts leading to this Regular Second Appeal 444 of 1962 :-

2. Gian Singh shown in the above pedigree-table, owned agricultural land and other immovable property in the area of villages Rai and Rakh Rai, Tehsil Lahore, now in West Pakistan. He was a Lambardar. In 1941, he was removed from the office of Lambardar. In order to retain this office in the family, he separated his eldest son, Sawan Singh, and gave him one-fourth share of his land, house and other property, so that the latter may become the Lambardar in his (Gian Singhs) place. Under this arrangement, the remaining three sons of Gian Singh were to be the sole heirs and owners of the property to be left behind by Gian Singh on his death, to the exclusion of Sawan Singh and his heirs. After the partition of the Indian Sub-continent, the parties migrated to India. In lieu of the landed estate left behind in Pakistan by Gian Singh, he was allotted the land in suit, situate in the area of village Shah Abu Bakar. Thereafter, consolidation proceedings took place. Sawan Singh got a separate chak allotted in the area of village Bula in lieu of the land left behind by him in Pakistan. Sawan Singh died sometime in 1953 or 1954 and the defendants succeeded him. Gian Singh died on 22nd May, 1957. Thereafter, the plaintiffs came in possession of the property that had been allotted to Gian Singh in village Shah Abu Bakar. After the death of Gian Singh, the defendants by making a false representation and perpetrating fraud, got one-sixth share of the suit land mutated in their favour on 3rd November, 1959, and also obtained symbolical possession of the same. Before the Revenue Officer on 17th September, 1957, the defendants admitted that the plaintiffs could also get a share in that land which had been allotted to the defendants father in lieu of Sawan Singhs land left behind by the latter in Pakistan. The plaintiffs, therefore, claimed possession of one-sixth share (measuring 42 Kanals and 1 Marla) out of land, measuring 263 Kanals and 4 Marlas, situate in the area of village Shah Abu Bakar. In the alternative, they claimed a decree for possession of 38 Kanals 15 Marlas of the land with regard to their five-sixth share in land measuring 46 Kanals and 10 Marlas, situated in the area of village Bula, Tehsil Zira. The suit was instituted in March, 1960. The defendants resisted the suit, inter alia, on the ground that Gian Singh was not the owner of the entire land in dispute; that he had a brother, Nidhan Singh, who died issueless leaving behind his widow Smt. Narain Kaur, who also died 10 years before the suit and thereupon the land which had been inherited by Narain Kaur from her husband, Nidhan Singh, also devolved on Gian Singh on her death. In this way, the land of Nidhan Singh came to be included in the suit land. The defendants denied that Gian Singh had separated Sawan Singh and had given him any share of any land. The parties went to trial on these issues :-

1. Was Gian Singh the owner of the land held by Sawan Singh in Pakistan ?

2. If issue No. 1 is proved, did Gian Singh separate Sawan Singh and disinherit him in respect of the remaining property ? If so, to what effect ?

3. Was the land in dispute allotted to Sawan Singh in lieu of the land held by him in Pakistan ?

4. Was the land allotted to Gian Singh in liue of the land held by him in Pakistan ?

5. Did the land allotted to Gian Singh include the land of Narain Kaur ? If so, to what effect ?

3. Issues 1, 2, 3 and 4 were decided against the plaintiffs. Under issue No. 5, it was held that Gian Singh did get some land by succession to Smt. Narain Kaur, widow of Nidhan Singh, after Sawan Singh had been separated by Gian Singh, and that, consequently, the defendants could not get any share out of the land thus inherited by Gian Singh from Narain Kaur. In the result the suit was dismissed with costs. The plaintiffs appealed.