In polyandrous marriages, property devolves upon surviving brothers by custom to the exclusion of children.

The plaintiffs (appellants), sons of Kali Ram, sought a declaration that they are entitled to the exclusive share of Madan Singh and a 1/5th share of Devi Saran’s property, alleging that a prior family arrangement was fraudulent and void.

Naro Devi was the common wife of two brothers, Devi Saran and Madan Singh, in a polyandrous marriage.

Upon Madan Singh’s death in 1935, mutation of his estate was sanctioned in favour of the surviving brother, Devi Saran, rather than his son Kali Ram.

The Trial Court and First Appellate Court dismissed the suit, holding that the inheritance was governed by custom and the suit was barred by limitation.

The court applied the Customary Law of polyandrous tracts in Himachal Pradesh (specifically Rohru and Kanawar), as documented in the Punjab State Gazetteers and Dr. Y.S. Parmar’s Polyandry in the Himalayas.

The core principle established is that in a polyandrous "Joridari" system, the family is a solid unit and property is inherited by the surviving brother(s); children do not inherit until all fathers (brothers of the co-marriage) have died.

This custom overrides the Mitakshara School of Hindu Law, and the concept of coparcenary—where a child acquires interest by birth—does not apply to such systems.

The court relied on the precedent Pratap Singh v. Guman Singh (2010), which affirmed that the surviving brother succeeds the deceased brother to prevent fragmentation of holdings.

The Court determined that since Madan Singh died in 1935, the Hindu Succession Act was not applicable; instead, the case turned on whether traditional Hindu law or local custom governed.

Citing authoritative texts, the Court found that in the polyandrous regions of Rohru, a "brother succeeds a brother".

Because Devi Saran was the surviving husband/brother, he legally succeeded to Madan Singh's estate to the exclusion of Madan Singh’s son, Kali Ram, according to the prevailing "Joridari" custom.

The Court noted that the parties' own pleadings admitted the mutation was sanctioned based on this joint marriage custom.

Consequently, the plaintiffs had no vested right in the property during the lifetime of Devi Saran, rendering their challenge to the partition and inheritance claims legally groundless.

The Court held that the plaintiffs/appellants were not entitled to the shares claimed as their father (Kali Ram) had no right to inherit during Devi Saran's lifetime under customary law.

The appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of the lower courts upholding the mutation and partition were affirmed.