Hindu son cannot challenge father's sale of property inherited from maternal grandfather under Punjab customary law

SC held that property inherited by a Hindu from his maternal grandfather under Punjab customary law does not constitute ancestral property regarding the inheritor's sons. The Court ruled that stare decisis doctrine was inapplicable as the original 1895 Punjab HC Full Bench decision had been consistently challenged and reversed in 1950. The Court found the earlier decision legally unsustainable regarding relevant custom interpretation. Consequently, the appellant lacked standing to challenge his father's alienation of such inherited property, and the appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: Whether immovable property inherited from a maternal grandfather, under the customary law prevailing in the Punjab, is ancestral property qua the descendants of the inheritor (i.e., whether such descendants acquire a birthright interest and can challenge alienations by the inheritor).

Analysis: The issue was examined against the framework of decisions of the Privy Council and three Full Benches of the Punjab High Court, authoritative statements in Rattigan's Digest on the customary law of the Punjab, and the principle of stare decisis. Earlier Full Bench decisions that treated property passing through a female as retaining ancestral character were scrutinised in light of later Privy Council pronouncements (notably clarifying that ancestral character under Hindu/Mitakshara law requires descent from a lineal male ancestor in the male line). The later Full Bench (Narotam Chand) conclusion that such property is not ancestral under Punjab customary law was found to be supported by (a) authoritative commentary in Rattigan, (b) relevant Privy Council observations, and (c) the fact that earlier Full Bench rulings lacked evidentiary foundation of local custom and had been questioned or effectively undermined by subsequent decisions; application of stare decisis did not preclude overruling the earlier view because no proprietary titles or settled contracts would be disturbed and the earlier rule lacked consistent community adoption.

Conclusion: Property inherited from a maternal grandfather under the customary law of the Punjab is not ancestral property qua the inheritor's descendants; such descendants do not acquire a birthright interest entitling them to challenge the inheritor's alienations.

---