Single-heir succession custom extended to non-talukdari acquisitions absent proof of a contrary Muhammadan family usage.

A statutory entry under the Oudh Estates Act, 1869 conclusively established the pre-existing family custom of single-heir succession for the taluka, and that proved custom raised a presumption that the same rule also governed the last owner's non-talukdari acquisitions in a Muhammadan family. The burden was not on the defendant to prove a separate custom for the acquired property; rather, the plaintiff had to affirmatively show a different rule of devolution. As no contrary usage was proved, the presumption was not displaced and the acquired property was treated as following the same custom as the taluka.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the statutory entry of the ancestral estate in the relevant list under the Oudh Estates Act, 1869 carried a conclusive presumption of pre-existing family custom only for the taluka or also supported an inference that the same rule governed non-talukdari acquisitions; (ii) whether the burden lay on the defendant to prove a separate custom for the acquired property, or on the plaintiff to rebut the presumption arising from the family custom attached to the estate.

Issue (i): whether the statutory entry of the ancestral estate in the relevant list under the Oudh Estates Act, 1869 carried a conclusive presumption of pre-existing family custom only for the taluka or also supported an inference that the same rule governed non-talukdari acquisitions.

Analysis: The statutory scheme treated inclusion of a talukdar in the relevant list as conclusive evidence of the pre-existing family custom on which that inclusion was founded. The reasoning drew a distinction between the limited statutory conclusiveness attaching to estates within the Act and the wider evidentiary effect of that proved custom when the character of later-acquired property was in question. In a Muhammadan family, where no legal distinction exists between ancestral and self-acquired property, a custom regulating succession to the estate raises a presumption that the same rule attached to the acquisitions of the last owner unless a different course of devolution is established.

Conclusion: the statutory custom attached to the estate furnished a presumption extending to the non-talukdari property, and the plaintiff had to show that the acquired property followed a different rule.

Issue (ii): whether the burden lay on the defendant to prove a separate custom for the acquired property, or on the plaintiff to rebut the presumption arising from the family custom attached to the estate.

Analysis: The burden was not governed by the same rule applicable to Mitakshara families dealing with ancestral and self-acquired property. Since the family was Muhammadan, all property followed one ordinary rule of devolution unless a contrary custom was proved. The materials relied upon by the plaintiff did not establish a different usage for the acquired property, while the evidence and surrounding family history supported a consistent custom of descent by a single heir. The plaintiff therefore failed to displace the presumption arising from the family custom associated with the taluka.

Conclusion: the burden lay on the plaintiff to prove a different rule, and he failed to do so.

Final Conclusion: the appeal failed because the acquired property was held to follow the same custom of devolution as the taluka, and the decree of dismissal was affirmed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: where a pre-existing family custom of single-heir succession to a talukdar's estate is conclusively established by statutory entry, that custom raises a presumption that the same rule governs the last owner's non-talukdari acquisitions in a Muhammadan family unless a contrary custom is affirmatively proved.

---