Callow J:

The claim is one for sharikat and reads:

(a) That defendant make a transfer of her 'bd share in the ten relongs land to plaintiff's name on the ground above-mentioned valued $750.

(b) One female buffalo valued at $150.

(c) The cash as much as $35.

At the conclusion of the plaintiff's case Mr. Taylor for the defendant submitted there was no case to answer and called no evidence.

Mr. Taylor's first point was that the plaintiff having been divorced and having subsequently remarried, forfeited all claims to sharikat; furthermore that any claim she conceived she possessed should have been made before the Kathi at the time of the divorce.

The parties are primitive peasants.There was disagreement and the husband (the defendant) divorced the plaintiff by Mohamedan law about a year ago.There is no evidence that the Kathi was notified, and I do not find that sharikat can only be claimed before the Kathi.It may be that the woman does not know of the divorce until after it has been pronounced.

The parties were married on 8 April 1926 (Exh. "B") but I had no evidence of the registration of the divorce in accordance with s. 5 of Enactment No. 109 (Sheriah Courts).

As to Mr. Taylor's other point it is established in Rasinah v. Said 29 that a woman can claim sharikat on divorce by the husband, and I find no reason why re-marriage should bar or extinguish such a claim.

It is a matter of regret that more publications on research on this subject of sharikat are not available.Malay Family Law published in 1937 by Taylor J contains much valuable information, and a further study and summary with reported cases would be most valuable.

Quite clearly it is wrong to regard the subject as one of Mohamedan Law. Gompertz CJ in Laton v. Ramah 35. rightly declared it to be Malay customary law, and it is established that on divorce a woman in Kedah is entitled by customary law to half of any property acquired during coverture by joint effort.

In this case, I find it established that on marriage the parties possessed no real property.On 15 October 1934 some eight years after marriage, Exh. "A" shows the acquirement of land SPK 4057.Still later State land Surat Akuan 165/02 was obtained, but that reverted to the State on 1 October 1949 and the plaintiff makes no claim in respect of this property.In both instances the titles are and were respectively in the name of the defendant.

There is evidence that the plaintiff was seen working over a period on the land SPK 4057 with her then husband the defendant.

In my judgment once it is established that the property was acquired subsequent to marriage, and the wife was seen working thereon, a presumption arises that on divorce it is subject to sharikat.This can be rebutted by evidence showing that the land was acquired by the sole efforts and resources of the husband.It is impossible in most cases for the woman to prove the purchase of the land from monies acquired by joint labour, the family purse is a private matter with the husband and wife, it can seldom be proved by extraneous evidence.If, for example, the husband inherited money or earned it separately, and with such funds purchased land, then obviously the property is vested in him alone, but the fact that he is the title holder is not in itself sufficient to dismiss the wife's claim; it is natural for the title to be registered in the name of the husband.

To revert to the claim, there was insufficient evidence to establish item (c) for $35, nor do I find enough to sustain item (b) in respect of cattle, but as regards the claim for half the land in SPK 4057 the plaintiff's evidence stands.

I therefore adjudge that the plaintiff has established her claim to 'bd share in the land SPK 4057, and in the absence of defence evidence to rebut the claim succeeds.

The Assistant Registrar of this Court is empowered to effect the necessary transfer to the plaintiff.Each party to bear their own costs.

Order accordingly.