JUDGMENT

Tek Chand, J. - The parties to this litigation are Rajputs of Mauza Shahpur Jajan, Batala Tahsil, District Gurdaspur, and are related to each other as follows:

Image

2. Mt. Mohan Devi died many years ago in the lifetime of Karam Chand, leaving a son Gurdial Singh defendant 1. He then married Mt. Tej Kaur from whom he had two sons, Harbhajan Singh and Shiv Dayal Singh, defendants 2 and 3. Karam Chand himself died on 21st November 1931, leaving over 650 ghumaons of land. On his death the land was mutated in the names of his three sons jointly. Some years later it was divided by them according to the Chundawand rule; Gurdial Singh getting one-half and Harbhajan Singh and Shiv Dayal Singh one-fourth each. At the time of partition between the sons, no provision was made for the maintenance of Mt. Tej Kaur. Accordingly, she instituted the suit, which has given rise to this appeal, for recovery of Rs. 20 per mensem as maintenance from the three defendants.

3. The suit was resisted by Gurdial Singh defendant 1, who pleaded that he, being the step-son of the plaintiff, was not liable for her maintenance, and that the property having been divided according to the Chundawand rule, she must look to the share allotted to her sons for maintenance. The trial Judge repelled this plea, and held that all the defendants were liable for the maintenance of the plaintiff in the proportion in which they had succeeded to the property of their father. He found that having regard to the extent of the property and the station in life of the parties, the proper amount of maintenance for the plaintiff was Rs. 20 per mensem. He accordingly passed a decree to the above effect, directing the defendants to pay this amount out of the estate of their father, defendant 1 to pay Rs. 10 and defendants 2 and 3 Rs. 10 per mensem. He further ordered that this sum of Rs. 20 per mensem shall be a charge upon the estate and the defendants shall not alienate or encumber so much of the estate as is sufficient to provide for the above maintenance to the plaintiff. Defendant 1 appealed to the District Judge, but was unsuccessful. He has preferred a second appeal in this Court.

4. As stated already, the parties are Rajputs of Batala Tahsil of Gurdaspur District, and it is common ground between them that in matters of inheritance they are governed by custom and not by Hindu law. This is clear from the fact that succession to Karam Chand's estate has been according to the Chundawand rule, which is not recognized by the Mitakshara School of Hindu law. In the Riwajiams prepared in the last two settlements it is stated that the rule of Chundawand prevails among the Rajputs of Batala Tahsil. The question of maintenance of Mt. Tej Kaur must therefore be primarily determined by custom, if one is found to exist. There is however no entry in the Riwajiams dealing with this matter. Nor have the parties been able to prove by other evidence the existence of any custom bearing on the point. It is settled law that among parties ostensibly governed by Customary law, if on a particular matter no definite rule of custom is proved to exist, the parties are entitled to fall back on their 'personal' law: Daya Ram v. Sahel Singh (1906) 110 PR 1906. If the 'personal' law also does not contain any definite rule applicable to the case, it must be decided according to "equity, justice and good conscience": Section 6, Punjab Laws Act. It is conceded by both counsel that the Mitakshara (which governs Hindus residing in the Punjab) does not contain any express provision governing a case of this kind. Under that system of law, on the death of a male proprietor, his property devolves on his sons in equal shares, whether born of one or several wives, and they are entitled to hold it jointly until they decide to partition. During this period, the widow or widows of the last male owner are entitled to be maintained out of the estate. If however the sons wish to divide the property among themselves, they