Pleading requirements in custom-based heirship contests: vague objections cannot replace the statutory foundational facts.

A challenge to the adoption and appointment of an heir based on custom was not maintainable because the objectors failed to plead the foundational facts required by section 6 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920. Specific pleading of the ancestral character of the property and descent within five degrees of the common ancestor was necessary; a vague assertion that the adoption was contrary to custom was insufficient. The framing of issues and the recording of evidence could not cure the absence of a definite plea, and no amendment was sought to supply it. The challenge therefore failed for want of proper pleadings.

---

---

Issues: Whether the defendants could contest the adoption and appointment of an heir without specifically pleading that the property was ancestral and that they were within the prohibited degrees under the relevant statute.

Analysis: The right to contest an appointment of an heir on the ground of custom was conditional upon the objector specifically pleading and proving the foundational facts required by section 6 of the Punjab Custom (Power to Contest) Act, 1920, namely the ancestral character of the property and descent within five degrees of the common ancestor. A vague assertion that the adoption was contrary to custom did not satisfy this requirement. The framing of issues and the fact that evidence was led could not cure the absence of a definite plea, and no amendment of the written statement was sought to supply the missing foundation. The rule that no amount of evidence can be looked into on a case never properly pleaded also applied.

Conclusion: The objection was not maintainable for want of the necessary pleadings, and the challenge to the decree failed.

---