Safiya Malik

The Punjab and Haryana High Court Single Bench of Justice Virinder Aggarwal set aside the decrees declaring a widow’s sale of land invalid and dismissed the collateral claimant’s suit, holding that her transfer of non-ancestral property inherited from her husband could not be nullified for want of the collaterals’ consent. The dispute arose after a collateral relative sought possession by challenging a registered sale deed executed by the widow in favour of vendees, alleging the transaction lacked necessity and violated customary limits on her powers. The Court said any customary restraint that fetters a woman’s right to deal with independently inherited non-ancestral property is constitutionally impermissible.

The litigation arose from a civil suit seeking declaration and possession of agricultural land measuring 42 kanals 19 marlas. The plaintiff claimed to be the collateral and nearest reversioner of the deceased owner, asserting that succession and alienation were governed by customary law applicable to the Meo community of the erstwhile Gurgaon District. It was pleaded that the widow of the original owner inherited only a life interest and lacked authority to alienate the property without the consent of collaterals.

Also Read: Excess Payment Of Land Acquisition Compensation To A Few Landowners Doesn’t Invalidate Others’ Compensation; Supreme Court

The plaintiff challenged a registered sale deed executed by the widow in favour of vendees, alleging absence of legal necessity and fictitious consideration. The defendants contested the claim, denying the applicability of custom, disputing the plaintiff’s status as reversioner, and asserting that the land was non-ancestral. They maintained that the sale was executed for valid personal necessities of the widow, including maintenance and family obligations.

The Trial Court decreed the suit, holding that the widow could not alienate the land without collateral consent. The First Appellate Court affirmed the decree. The defendants preferred a Regular Second Appeal challenging the concurrent findings.

The Court examined the scope of second appeal and recorded that “second appeals preferred are to be treated as appeals under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act, 1918 and not under Section 100 CPC.”

On the interpretation of customary law, the Court observed that “any reference to ‘property’ in the Wajib-ul-arz is, by necessary implication, to be construed as a reference to ancestral property alone, and not to property of a non-ancestral character.”

The Court noted that the nature of the suit land stood conclusively determined in prior litigation and recorded that “the Civil Court categorically held the suit property to be non-ancestral. That finding, having attained finality between the parties, was rightly relied upon.”

While analysing reliance placed on earlier precedent, the Court stated that “in Hussain Bai’s case, the binding dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Jai Kaur was not brought to the notice of the Court, with the result that the Riwaj-i-am was applied in a literal and unqualified manner.”

On constitutional implications, the Court recorded that “any custom or restriction which curtails the right of a female to alienate property inherited by her from her husband, when such property is non-ancestral in nature, is inherently discriminatory.” It further stated that “a limitation founded solely upon gender or marital status cannot withstand the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.”

Regarding legal necessity, the Court observed that “the record unmistakably establishes that the alienation was effected for the bona fide and pressing needs of Smt. Rehmani herself.”

The Court finally noted that “once the property is held to be non-ancestral, and the sale is shown to be for a legally recognized necessity of the owner, the transaction cannot be declared void merely for want of the consent of the collateral.”

Also Read: NGT Is Proper Forum For PPCB Closure And Power Disconnection Orders: P&H High Court Disposes Newspaper Proprietors’ Plea Alleging Coercive Action After Critical Reports

The Court directed that “the appeal filed by the appellants deserves to be, and is hereby, allowed. The judgments and decrees passed by the learned Courts below are set aside. The suit instituted by the respondent–plaintiff stands dismissed. All pending miscellaneous applications howsoever titled or described shall, by necessary implication, also stand disposed of.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vishan Pundir, Advocate

For the Respondents: Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Heman Sarin, Advocate

Case Title: Mohd. Ashraf and Another v. Sadiq (Since Deceased) through LRs and Others
Neutral Citation: 2026: PHHC:009090
Case Number: RSA-1499-1996 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Virinder Aggarwal