JUDGMENT

1. The parties in this case are Aroras of the town of Kasur in the Lahore District. The plaintiffs are the sons of Khazana Mal and the defendant is the widow of Bishan Das who was the grandson of a brother of Khazana Mal. The members of the family were traders and money-lenders. Bishan Das died before his father Narain Das, and the dispute between the parties arose after the death of Narain Das, which occurred in 1911. The plaintiffs allege that they and Narain Das formed a joint Hindu family, and they sue for a declaration that the property in their possession, specified in the lists attached to the plaint, is the property of the joint family of which they an now the sole members, and for an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering therewith contending that she has no rights except those of residence and maintenance. They also sue for possession of certain moveable property which they say is with the defendant.

2. The defendant denies that the members of the family were joint and pleads that the property, in respect of which a declaratory decree is asked for, belonged to her father-in-law Narain Das and that she is his hair by a local and family custom. She also denies that the property of which the plaintiffs ask for possession is with her.

3. The Subordinate Judge has found that Narain Das and the plaintiffs did not form a joint Hindu family, and that the defendant has proved that among Aroras there is a special custom by which a widow succeeds to her father-in-law's estate. He has accordingly dismissed the suit and the plaintiffs' appeal. It will be sufficient to discuss the question of the custom set up by the defendant as the appeal must, in our opinion, succeed on this point. Thirty-four instances have been adduced in support of the custom and the lower Court considers that 24 of these are clear instances in the defendant's favour. It may be noted, however, that, although the defendant pleaded a family custom, none of these instances occurred in the family to which the parties belong, and in fact none occurred in the got of the parties, namely the khetarpal got, Only the first nine instances are from the town of Kasur, the others being nearly all instances from villages in the Kasur and Chunian Tahsils of the Lahore District and in districts other than Lahore. Instances from villages are of little value in the present case, and in this connexion we may refer to Motan Das v. Morni Bai [1915] 33 P.R. 1915 a case relating to Aroras of Multan City at page 174. [P.R. 1915.] We will consider the instances in the order in which they are given in the lower Court's judgment. (The judgment reviewed the instances and proceeded),

4. The result is that there is not a single instance of any value in the defendant's favour, whilst four of the instances cited namely, Nos. 10, 24, 25 and 27, and the judgment of Mehta Lekh Raj, referred to in connexion with Instance No. 1, support the plaintiffs. We hold, therefore, that the defendant has failed to prove the custom set up and that the rule of Hindu Law must be followed.

5. Admittedly under that Jaw the plaintiffs are entitled to succeed to the property of their cousin Narain Das to the exclusion of the daughter-in-law, and it becomes unnecessary to go into the question whether they and Narain Das constituted a joint family. They are entitled to a decree in respect of the property in their possession, but it is admitted that there is no evidence as to the existence of the moveable property which they allege to be in the possession of the defendant. We accept the appeal and pass a decree declaring that the plaintiffs are the owners of the property in their possession shown in the lists attached to the plaint, and that the defendant has no lights therein except those of residence and maintenance, and granting an injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with such property. The defendant will pay the plaintiffs' costs in both Courts except the costs incurred in r