Judgement

Appeal (No. 52 of 1925) from a decree of the High Court (June 10, 1924) reversing a decree of the District Court of Pegu (March 10, 1923).

The respondent brought a suit against the appellants alleging that she was the widow of one Sheik Moideen, a Sunni Mahomedan, and claiming to recover from the appellants property of the deceased. The appellants by their written statement pleaded that Sheik Moideen had divorced the respondent according to Mahomedan law.

The facts appear from the judgment of the Judicial Committee.

The District Court held that there had been a valid divorce and dismissed the suit. An appeal to the High Court was allowed, and the case remitted to the District Court for disposal.

The learned judges (Young and Baguley JJ.) held that certain secondary evidence of a document relied on as a talaknama, an instrument of divorce, was not admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, s. 63; and that the words uttered by the husband as to the document did not effect an oral divorce, as his intention was not to divorce his wife orally at the time, but by a document. The joint judgment of the learned judges is reported at I. L. R. 2 R. 400.

1926. July 23, 26, 27. S