Court caseAIR 1952 SC 231

A custom must be proved to be ancient, certain and reasonable and, being in derogation of the general rules of law, is to be construed strictly; it must be established by clear and unambiguous evidence, though in the Punjab the entries of a Riwaj-i-am and the statements in Rattigan's Digest carry an initial presumption of correctness.

The appellant claimed that the respondent, Parvin Kumari, was his lawfully wedded wife and relied upon a custom said to prevail among the parties' community in the Punjab to support the validity of the alleged marriage. The courts below were not satisfied that the marriage, or the custom relied on, had been established, and the appellant came to the Supreme Court. The Court had therefore to state the rules by which an alleged custom is to be proved in India, where the English requirement of immemorial antiquity does not apply in its strict form.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. Fazl Ali J restated the law on the proof of custom: a custom in order to be legal and binding must be proved to be ancient, certain and reasonable; being in derogation of the general rules of law it must be construed strictly, and the party asserting it must establish it by clear and unambiguous evidence. In the Punjab the general custom recorded in Rattigan's Digest, a book of unquestioned authority, and the entries in the Riwaj-i-am (the record of village customs made at the settlement) are presumptively correct, but the presumption is rebuttable and is weaker where the entries are against the interests of persons, such as women, who were not consulted. The evidence in the case fell short of that standard.