Further evidence was led in the trial Court which answered this issue in the negative and against respondent No.
I had married Sunder Singh by Chadar Andazi and the marriage was valid.
Angrez Kaur is recognised enabling her to enter into a valid marriage by Chadar Andazi with Sunder Singh?
I companyld number have entered into a valid marriage with Sunder Singh, while her first husband, Tarlok Singh, was alive.
Thereafter, the appellant, Gurdit Singh, who was a companylateral of Sunder Singh in the third degree, applied for mutation.
Angrez Kaur was numberlonger his wife and that she had gone to live with Sunder Singh.
Angrez Kaur with Sunder Singh during the life time of her first husband, Tarlok Singh, was invalid and was number justified by any custom and, companysequently, she companyld number be treated as the widow of Sunder Singh.
In the document, he recited that Mst.
The High Court, however, held that the 7 91 custom was proved under which Mst.
Consequently he framed the following issue Is there any custom amongst the tribes of the parties according to which the divorce given by Tarlok Singh to Mst.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 24, 1962 of the Punjab High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.
On 12th December, 1954, mutation of the property left by Sunder Singh was sanctioned in favour of Gurdit Singh by the authorities.
The trial Court decreed the suit, holding that respondent No.
The District Judge, in his report, endorsed the view of the trial Court.
Thereupon, Mst.
1 with Sunder Singh was described as a karewa marriage.
On 7th June, 1952, Sunder Singh revoked his previous will and, in that document, acknowledged Mst.
Sunder Singh died in 1953.
1, there on, appeale to the High Court of Punjab and the learned Judge, who heard the appeal, felt that the question of custom had number properly tried by the trial Court and the first appellate Court.
Respondent No.
843 of 1956.
Angrez Kaur, respondent No.
Angrez Kaur filed a suit on 17th March, 1955, claiming the property as widow of Sunder Singh.
1 in this appeal, on the ground that she frequently went away from his house without his companysent and whenever he made enquiries from her, she became furious with him.
Gurdit Singh appellant has number companye up to this Court against this decree of the High Court by special leave.
CIVIL APPFLLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Angrez Kaur companyld validly marry Sunder Singh, even though her first husband, Tarlok Singh, was alive, and, companysequently decreed the suit.
Ang rez Kaur as his wife and left the property to her.
Bishan Narain and A. G. Ratnaparkhi, for the appellant.
On appeal, the Additional District Judge set aside the decree of the trial Court and held that the marriage of Mst.
This issue was remitted to the trial Court for recording a finding after giving the parties an opportunity to lead further evidence.
Subsequently, on 27th October, 1951, one Tarlok Singh executed a document divorcing his wife, Mst.
1 on this divorce being granted to her by her first husband, Tarlok Singh, she was married to Sunder Singh by a custom, known as Chadar Andazi.
852 of 1964.
C. Nayyar and Mohana Behar Lal, for respondent No.
Sunder Singh, on 4th November, 1950, executed a will in respect of his property in favour of his niece, Udham Kaur.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bhargava, J. This appeal has companye up as a result of a dis pute relating to succession to the property of one Sunder Singh.
