Customs Cannot Curb Widow’s Right Over Non-Ancestral Property Of Her Deceased Husband: Punjab & Haryana High Court

The Court further said that a limitation founded solely upon gender or marital status is arbitrary and an unreasonable classification.

Accordingly, a bench of Justice Virinder Aggarwal observed, “Considered in the light of the constitutional guarantees, the principles enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and the consistent judicial exposition rendered by this Court, the legal position stands crystallised beyond ambiguity 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. A limitation founded solely upon gender or marital status cannot withstand the scrutiny of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, which mandates equality before law and prohibits arbitrary or unreasonable classifications. Consequently, any such fetter on a woman’s right to deal with her independently inherited property must be held to be constitutionally impermissible, legally unsustainable, and devoid of binding effect.

“…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”, the bench further observed.

Senior Advocate Ashish Aggarwal appeared for the appellant and Senior Advocate M.L. Sarin appeared for the respondent.

In the present matter, the dispute arose from civil rights claimed by a widow, whose suit had been decreed by the Trial Court and subsequently affirmed by the First Appellate Court. Both courts, after a detailed examination of oral and documentary evidence, recorded concurrent findings recognising the widow’s entitlement and rejected the claims raised by the appellants.

The appellants challenged these findings before the High Court, primarily relying on entries in the Wajib-ul-arz to contend that the widow lacked authority to alienate the property without the consent of collaterals.

Rejecting this contention, the High Court held that the legal position on the scope of Wajib-ul-arz stands crystallised beyond ambiguity. Any reference to “property” in such customary village records must, by necessary implication, be construed as referring only to ancestral property and not to property of a non-ancestral character.

The Court noted that the nature of the suit land was no longer res integra, as an earlier civil suit between the same parties had conclusively determined the property to be non-ancestral. That finding had attained finality and was rightly relied upon by the First Appellate Court.

The Court further observed that once the property is held to be non-ancestral, and the alienation is shown to be for a legally recognised necessity of the owner, the transaction cannot be declared void merely for want of consent of collaterals. Reliance on customary restrictions to invalidate such a sale was held to be legally impermissible.

While Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Jai Kaur and Others vs. Sher Singh and Others, AIR 1960 SC 1118, the High Court reiterated that customary limitations recorded in the Wajib-ul-arz cannot override settled principles of property law or constitutional guarantees. Upholding the concurrent findings of the courts below, the High Court dismissed the appeal, thereby affirming the widow’s right to alienate the non-ancestral property.

Cause title: Mohd. Ashraf and Another v. Sadiq (Since Deceased) through his LRs and Others [Neutral Citation: 2026:PHHC:009960]

Appearance:

Appellants: Ashish Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, Vishan Pundir, Advocate.

Respondents: M.L. Sarin, Senior Advocate, Heman Sarin, Advocate.

Click here to read/download the Order