SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1958 Supreme(Ker) 284

High Court of Kerala
G. Kumara Pillai, C.A. Vaidialingam, JJ.
Abdulla Koya Haji - Appellant
Versus
Imbichipathumma Bi - Respondent
A.S. No. 591 of 1954
Decided On : 03-03-1958

The main legal point established in the judgment is that the provisions of Ex. B7, creating a strivazhi tarwad with the plaint properties as tarwad properties and denying any right to the male members of the tarwad, were void.

Headnote:

Partition - Mahomedan Personal Law vs. Marumakkathayam Law - Ex. B7 creating a strivazhi tarwad with the plaint properties as tarwad properties and denying any right whatsoever to the male members of the tarwad, is void.

Fact of the Case:

The appeal arises from a suit for partition between Mahomedans of Kozhikode. The main question is whether their rights in the properties are governed by the Mahomedan Personal Law (Shariat) or by the Marumakkathayam Law.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the properties were not governed by the Marumakkathayam Law and that Ex. B7 creating a strivazhi tarwad was void.

Issues: The main issue was the applicability of the Mahomedan Personal Law or the Marumakkathayam Law to the properties sought to be partitioned.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the provisions of Ex. B7, which created a strivazhi tarwad with the plaint properties as tarwad properties and denied any right to the male members of the tarwad, were void.

Final Decision: The court confirmed the lower court's decree and dismissed the appeal with costs.

JUDGMENT

Kumara Pillai, J.

1. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition. Parties are Mahomedans of Kozhikode, and the main question which arises for decision in the appeal is whether their rights in regard to the properties which are, sought to be partitioned are governed by the Mahomedan Personal Law (Shariat) or by the Marumakkathayam Law. Defendants 4 and 8 in the lower court are the appellants before us.

2. One Ahammed Koya Haji who died in 1934 and who was a member of a Mopla tarwad at Cannanore in North Malabar, following the Marumakkathayam Law of inheritance, had by his wife, Kalmabi, three sons, namely defendants 1 to 3, and four daughters whose names were Pathummabi, Kadeesabi, Ayissabi, and Mariyam Bi. Kalmabi died in 1905, even before her husband. All the four daughters are also now dead. Mariyam Bi died in 1914. She had two sons, one of whom is dead and the other is defendant 4. Ayissabi died in 1921 leaving two sons and one daughter, the sons being defendants 5 and 7 and the daughter defendant 6. Kadeesabi died in 1948 leaving no issue. The other daughter, Pathummabi, had pre-deceased her, in 1945, leaving a daughter whose name also was Kadeesabi. The properties sought to be partitioned, namely, plaint items 1 to 4, are acquisitions standing in the names of Kalmabi and her four daughters under a gift deed Ext. Al dated 27-6-1903, executed by Ahammad Koya Haji in favour of Kalmabi for plaint item 1, an assignment (Ex. A3 dated 10-2-1912) executed by him in favour of his eldest daughter, Pathummabi, for plaint items 2 and 3, and another assignment deed (Ex. A2 dated 8-2-1912) executed by Kalmabis brother, Ussan Koya, in favour of Pathummabi for plaint item 4; and the main dispute in the appeal is whether devolution of these properties after the deaths of Kalmabi and her daughters would be governed by the rules of Marumakkathayam Law of inheritance or by the rules of succession under the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat). Kalmabis mother Katheesabi, survived her and died only in 1926. Besides the daughter, Kalmabi, Katheesabi had two sons also. One of them was Ussan Koya, the person who executed Ex. A2 in favour of Pathummabi. He died in 1945. The other son, Abubucker Koya Haji, died in 1929, and plaintiffs 1 and 2 are his widow and son respectively. Plaintiffs 1 and 2 are therefore the widow and son of Kalmabi brother. As started already, defendants 1 to 3 are Kalmabi sons and the brothers of her four daughters, defendant 4 is her grandson, being the son of her daughter (Mariyam Bi); and defendants 5 to 7 are her grandchildren being the issues of her daughter, Ayisabi. Defendants 3 to 10 are persons who would be entitled to some rights in the properties belonging to Ayissabi and Mariyam Bi if they were governed by the Muslim Personal Law and not by the Marumakkathayam Law of inheritance. Mariyam Bi husband, Ali Koya Haji, survived her and died only in 1918. After Mariyam Bi death, he married a second wife whose name was K. Katheesabi and who survived him and died only in 1923. After Ali Koya Hajis death his second wife, K. Katheesabi, married again, her second husband being Abubucker Koya who was the husband of Ayissabi, Mariyam Bis sister. After K.Katheesabi death in 1923 this Abubucker Koya married a third wife, Imbichipathummabi, who survived him and died only in 1931, and defendant 8 is his daughter by her. After Abubucker Koyas death Imbichipathummabi was married a second time, and defendant 10 (Chekkunhi) is her second husband. At the time of the death of Mariyam Bis second husband, Ali Koya Haji, his father (Mammadkoya Haji) was alive and defendant 9 is Mammadkoya Hajis daughter. Thus, through successive steps of inheritance defendants 8 and 10 would be entitled to a small portion of the estates left by Mariyam Bi and Ayissabi, and defendant 9 would be entitled to a small portion of Mariyam Bis estate.

3. Accord

















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top