AS/24/1954 of KOCHUNNI KOCHU MUHAMMAD Vs KUNJU PILLAI MUHAMMAD on 21 December 1955

II1

( K.T.Koshi, C. J. and Kumara Pillai, J.)

Appeal Suit No~ 24 of 1954

JUDGMEMT

Delivered..by.±umgra±±ilai.. a.

TH!S ap!)eal ar1.sos out of a. suit for partitionof the hare of a Mohan@aedan widow in the sstate of lerdeceased husband.The husband whose estate is soughtto be partitioned was the third husband of plai.ntiff 1,-Md pla.i.ntif:f1 herself was his second wife.Plaintiff 1's first husband died in 1077 and her secondhusband, who married her in 1082, divorced her a yearor two after the marriage.In 1085 she was marriedagain by her third husband, Kocheena Kochunni ~ethar,who will hereaftar be referred to in this judgment asMethar.At the time of their marriage plaintiff1 hadchildren bom to her first husband, and !Yiethar also hadch1287n Ay his first lf'e ho had died about the year1032.ethar had no children 'by plaintiff 1.He diedon 3.9.1121, and on 3.3.112 plaintiffs1 and 2 broughtthe present s·uit for partition of the share of plaintiff 1,narsly one-eihtn, in his estate.Defendants1 to 3'are Methars ehildr.en by his.first wife, defendant1 be-ting his son and defendants 2 and. 3 daughters.1-'lain-tif:f 2 is the son of 229inti£ 1 7 gr first husband.Plai.ntiff 1was seventynine years old at the tirne ofthe institution of the suit, and she died shortly after-wards.Shnedd i:hplainthhhgdtransferred to plaint1ff 2 all her rights in the estateof her deceased hsbad fr cons'dcrtior receirsd fromhim, and after her de8th plaintif.f 2 alone prosecutedthe suit.

I

2. Defendants 1 and 2 contested the suit.Theirmain contentions were that th9re was an agreement bet-ween ?ethar and plaiatiff1 at the time of their marriagewhereby they had agreed that on the death of either ofthe soouses thesurvivowouldnotim the share which..~.he or she, as the ease "ffl'BT be, would ordinarily bf! antitledto under the Mohammedan Law in the estate left hy theother spouse nd that all the properties left by the de-ceased spouse souid be taken only by his or her othorheirs, that plaintiff 1 subsequently executed a deed on26.3.1117, x.3, relinquishing her right of inheritanceto ethar's estate in the event of his predeceasing her,that this was part of a family settlement, r.nd th&t onaccow'lt of itplaintiff 1 was not entitled to claim anyshare in the estate of Methar.In' regard to this con.'-tention the plaintiffs case was that there was no agreement at the time of th.e marriage as alleged by defen-dents 1 anId 2, that Ex. I was caused to be executed byfraud and undue in,fluance practised on plaintiff1byWetnar, an@ that Ex. I and tne relinquishment of her'right of inheritance by plaintiff1lfi~ere voi.d andshould.not be given effect to.The lor court fund thatvitiated by any fraud or undue ir1fluenee ae urged bythe plaintiffs.Nevertheless, it refused to give effecttoEx. I on the ground that it was void and invalid.Consequmtly it passed a preliminary decree for partitionin favour of plaintiff 2, and this appeal is filed bydefendants i and 2 against that preli.wninary decree.

/

..3

3.2hac thee as a agreeuenibetween Methr andplairt~i££ 1 ~t the tine of thoir111,3.rri.aga t.hat, in theeve-11.t of one of them ?'J."edoceasing the other, the survivorwould not claim ar.y right of inheritance in the w,oper-t199 1oft by thedeceasedperson and that a fataily settle-menton the lines of this agreement was made on the dateof Ex .. ! are matters which adnit of no doubt.Ex. IIi.5 a r,ortit,ion deed f:!X~euted by plaintiff 1 and her chil-d:ran by the firet hus1an.d by which ell the propertiesinherited by them from the first husband of plaintiff1date and presere& for registration almost; simultaneouslya'h,,e ub3;·1 k 234st ·trar'g· enddorse,enttcntt'hese. d..:1-oc•umen_.i..ts si•ofthat Ex. II was presented for registration at12 noon on26.3. 1417 and Ex. :rr-i.t 12.15 P.M. on tho same day.Ioboth thesecl.oeumerts a brother of plainttf:f 1 as well as-Plaine. brother or her fir$t husbandTtrere att,f!lstors.t5£f 2 nd his brother and s} str aswmll a-s tethar werer~es.ent in thmh Ros•. . •3tr•\OfficeMn connection'n the date

i.nt erested

Analysis

i.nt erested

and hrc±hr-!r-law 0f 9la1nt1ff 1, have not been calledas witneasGs to prove the allegation of f!"#)Ud and undueinfluence, and it is dj_fficult to believe tht these .'close relatives o£ plaintiff- 1 and her gro1111 up children,including plaintif't 2, wcu.ld have allowed her to executex. I and themselves participate in the execution of jg pa-if Meth·ar had induced· her to execute it by fraud andundue influence.ix .. I explicitely tttates that theriwas an gresent between Methar and pl4int if f1 at thetimis of the marriage that>i.n the event of one of thempredeceasing the other, the survivor would notclaim-any right of inheritance 1 th;a properties left by theJecea.r.ea person.A.t the time or he:r marriage,rlth MetharpU'iotl.f.t'1 was thirtjeven years old, and 9smay be seenfrcnnI.~x. II she was then in possession of consid.erableproperties left by her first husband and belonging afterhis dea.th to her and her children by him.She and hercildren were then liviug with her father;and after themcG""riage the children continued to live with and undertht1 guardianship of their maten1al grandfatner.He toowas a person of considerable means, and »laintiff 1, beinghis daughter, was one oi' his neirs.In the circumstancesit, is.>nly too probable that, an a.greemertt like this wouldhav~ been-entered into by Metha'r and plaint if f. 1 at the't3uae of the marriage with a view to conserve the proper-ties05plaint;1°11 to the lt3mate henefit of her chil-;en toe and the properties of Methar to the ultimatebenefit of his children a?one and to aoii fut1re dis-put,es and qarre?s betw.en their children.Dealing witht.he subject of marriage contracts, Tyab,iisays ln the thirdedition of his book on MuhammR.dan Law, page 113, that ifthe wife has any property of her own it is desirable tomake special arrangements about it in the marriage con-tract.Having regard to ct.i.1 thef:te facts and circumstanceswe think tht i is too probable that tho:re·:.ra:, an aeree-ments a.,ilced. by tueh d_, ...eic..ins acrsier tha the findings of the DistrictJudge both in regard to thetruth o:f the agreement. at-&;ne time'of the marriage aswei.l as to ti1e t"alsity or the allegation thatEx. I wascaused tobe executed by fraud and undue influence prac-i;egg •y.Ei;s-taah daelns;5pt2a&3dad t 2a¢d«1 areid pg nk d.?dieotly rihd't;

4. It is mainly on tJ1e.grou.nd th~t a contingent rightoz inn€iance cannot oe transferred or renounced thatts learned iscict Judge has held that the. relin.quish-m:::mt oi' rur right of inher·itance in Methar[1]e. estate byplain±R IZs vi! d cannot be given ef"feet to, ar-dho has1;>l.ace,[1]'.!'.'el ia.nce in this connection on the deci-sions nf the Hi1f,:;;h Ccurts or Bombav.. ancl Madrr-ts in S~um-su~..............dd.....in.,Cases 35.Dea!ing rich ihe question of the validity-c:: th\~ rel:lnqtiisbment oi a eontinp:ent. right of inheritanceof a Nohaiwaedan heir, ,Sir. Lawren.:,e Je.."lkins,Chief Justice,so ueilveed the juigeno of t.-he court·111 Sum§uddin Goolam-huseip ys. bgui Jsein±glimu@din,{I.L.s.)X.Y..XI Bombay"''10[,][.][·][·][~]., •[-][ h]t...G sa.t..da.1.11 page171o.fth.e report:.

td ia 5.se absence of cisar sroor to hcco5.27iy• euclly ai. to» t ear'eut,I) hv.i..uta rere is any rule oi :•iohamedcm iaatsa:.ctic.r..:; the t~·au;fer of an expectancy.

\

I

•.6..

By par!t.y of roaooning I corr.e to he furtherconclusion tbf:t·there could no't be a release of~such e chance:c>0t1piri: Ke:p ve. Jel§tJY.s. (720}P[....,]&--[.][~]"--'[,.]•V,,,,han...,..,..C..L '-,tf..

In Jicha Be£ivi J/~• WU2PAA Chet,ty, XlV InM.anCa$ea 35,a iv4l encl: o? the sores !igh Court has, after consiiera-ti.on of the iodee!leisns f that ccuzz to the ,:ontrary it i.s unnecessary· to cot.!si1ar whethe!' this -tran~!~r orrer.unci.ation wu.ld no~ also be invelid ,mder the provi-Bi('ms of t,eetion 6 ot.' the 'l're.nsf'er of Prcperty Aet itself'".But an important exception to the general rule that ato inherit bas been recognise.ti ey el"in'7nt writers o£ text

TA ft of the erectatior of scceeirg to theeztat '! ot ! tivtnµ: per"" or_ tc,'."'!Ot zt;provided fit tht tmnder Shi: It!naA?arila the ex7stag, '>fr of ; l!rig prs;:r.ay em power him ·to dia-p,oEe by rlll- of pro-r:zysx2?e% 2? he kq2a9hsl:. "·izf hies"S.state;a.""ld seeondly · th~t a contract not tocl3i: sty ihritsacs ;t£thest:e of11·rlr16 person o~ hts death may validly e gde.t'°-">r(;'t":C-d:,o;-?31-:::·;-.atic~.~'h€'r-,3 ru~l'I:e. ecr.t,:-aetis in the nature of a t'amily arrangement 'theCurt, mney lcck U:cn it with fevc3:."

'.Ln Mullahs Principles et~,mhammadan r.,aw, thirteenth /

l/edition, it is saidP.t page 45:

-rtA Mubamnadan heir may by his conduct be estopped from claiming the inheritance he has agreedto relinquish 1f ti'M rel ease was part vf a eom-promise or family settlement and if he hasbenefitted·uy the transaction".

.•

•7•

Lawt..lcurnal 3'42an<i;' 'i~ir----l-•JJ.···-.Ea,z.. v..s.?'§..i:Y>}z-.t:1-R.ahmp.~XIX.IV All. L. J. Jk,~ lra.s a ease in wrd.eh th.e second't-tife-'lf n l-!,'n!1Ai'\l'lA.d'!n l!Xeeuted a. de9d 'jf r~l~ase relinquishinghe atrt'-:brtnd lV't" rr:l! th<"!llt!'.'i>.-ra:..1J.and com;t~.tuted hGr chil-drel'H:'.i t•·w tern:flr:d1:,rtp:.:;, J·"-hc "The contrnct mmie bv an he:tr .for eonsi.deratio11ac~·. t""[1]..1;.1'.·_;2tr2·art' en"be snidtlocr tet-r,r~[1]frc;,:t e:.7'Sj-":i i~~u,:ere-sai·:: rh-~ 6~",,.-,sJidif.:€:;.:,_e.nt wi,,ry, i ensyreeriilred ~d :tt is r.nly a ea.sh c<H1sid.eraticm andthe oontr:ict:lsr:mbs~q_uen1~ly sought to be en--forced, ,.t wou.ld bFc a ma:t;ter of diacrel.tion tor"th.€ court t,:, :rf'f[1].l84;:i:F!1Jf'Cifi~ pe...:·rnr-rJ~c.n-~ andto l'!!t.ke t,he !>le:.nt~1 f'f i•H:t eorapenfluti ~m ¥.hen heis not carYYing out hisr.:ontjr~ct.But inca~~rw1'.::f'rt·-· ti:i' ef,-.':(::J"'ert.h1.:e b:,~:rd.f~ctf!din a for:n -wh:teh mndP :lt imuossi"!h, 2tn· thiSc:r..:urt tc- rrant ad£-q1..att· net~i:euset-ic,n to thea2r32vd a7% h12 373002nt sr +ell ho::;pfc:,•r:{s,:, anc the ~1J-,ii.r1t-iff l.e ht<J.d t.,ound by it".

«Jf the relinau:tnn"l"t':~'.-i-r ,~ in tl'.'.-'''?tur·e cf",!'.32,otr0¢7ofaeyt:e?got; th!:!nof course5t would be void vnder t?1?c·t.1cn 6;Hr%, !8"t¢my?«r ry pro;srcnt: n. %r':y9gtfor not elaimine.~ col"ti ngent!"i.ght of' inheritancemg;:= Cr.:; par:, :;;at;that.+,h. casewould not he 'overned ky the prri1.or of Sec-i 01+ a22

was a c;:i.se tn whl.ch ur.Hier the tc?Ml"l5 c,,f. a compr::;mls~ ua lviu.hammedan husband r~li:nquished his right to succeed as / {, - ••g••

heir to his wife.It was held in that ease that tnecompromise was in the nature or a family settlen1ent andthat the relinquiuhnent ct hi.!:! right by the husband tosucceed ~-E ho.ir to his ifs was not in thE: circumstancesobncxi.ou.e either to}.:.uh!lllmoo1n1"t,aw or. to;:·,eetio:n 6 of i;.Frcrr th.:: circumetat1ees of theJu>es€ntcase andtn~= exrrens~ terms of 2x.1 t11e.rt1 cann,t c;:, the .leasta:on tb t. .nat-.:-·,X.r:5. .l-part& of afamily1:ettlement uncl. th~t tl1e.1.11~linquish.a:;tmt by pl.a.in-i:,iff·1 of 0r:r right- tu5.ru:c:ri ~ ir:. H~::t.her·'f; estt.:t;e iniH.1 nas bun ported ou& lreedy it l.'aSproper under the }hemaden iaw to sake specil arrange-

her.ts t 'kenofhmariaabuthppe rt-t--which the -wife o\t:ned, and in makirg sucn arrangementsabcutt:.hl- pn.1_p€'.;rti~bt).f plaintifr1both I-ictllar and plain-t1ff 1 hurl agreed that it1 the c~ffe u.f eithc:i: of them pre-decaix.g; tne other :e survivcr would no claim therii,ht o:f inhii:1·it.ar.tee tc the - e.ett.tc cf 'Lhe decet~sed person.E.ether the rauciti: v the cctire, zi4.t of in-2et!erHeritrc ade : ie tie c£ae aux:ie a vaid ande.ZS t eorcu Gr r-ct:Lt if aiJso'.:.ut1.:..ly ci.:ll'ttdn tliat./.J_tbs-_;ecetwon.l la±d to z&vu.e ipus bet-Jc,t,h f'iGth..r- and plain-<rcn1 ofttr soul. bsv tied the children of theot'rrr tc sher,;.; in tkcp.is ltt by th,,:Li."':pEJ.rent. ·thenlcmd II w:;,1·cE.Xe~ted brrth ri'!t,thar and plaintiff 1were well advanced in age and it was diffiOl.lt to predict thew?& here ntr??y An!rs ta 9•i"'srfilY ~,;.tle-ant, ta«ng:g th pazan hs. rinsetss »f lltts nasbers4m the fally p€?am!r th·gt.lvn %%} ts ch{i?reof ea.I(cha£ thees a? 3rt regs!!s t!!spates hets4 t±4 bi±rs 1't~;i hs .1P1ti.es~ tu tJ:t• fitmU·:t tJ1}t.1cp,1~!~:t arr-i~ nt.. ~ r.f!'ttrle•-f·· ,'.lf1ttJti(.:t';f tl~t:1~~G t:~~'i-. &~t.~~l_rlr.t .•mv~('!; ~t ~'!f"f, b0ll.U:Jl• r.1938 In~ :,;aJ\ tttl.W~ f':tUt:di 1,1.\'"111frf etint"t: !aliiily1:it;t.\ :,,.atnit fvl •vt~,n~- ~,~t'ble di,•! ,.rt-ae, i..r:'t!'(. f~t~t•e l~t•·:HJ;J. \b:c dtil!irc-n t"f pl.1-1nt.\.ff 1Oftt "'·.m!C' b:3!?-!± ar,d \1:..,i 41.iilt,r~¾'• t';f ~-~hat• - the hr bytStt._\.ih',.f t,·;,x.f1{11..:te-l3· a!.l W.,.'1' ptt,ce:rti.c,.,1,::f f:l1!.lnt,1f"t1 onN •~ ~,;~l, .Ik••·m:<J".I i,l,:li!cHU1 :!'t~:c ...,._ to cla.111ll rt:.}.11.; o:f luhf.jJ'iti!!'.\t>tt w tt,tt-tsi.~t:f: of 1i~~h.fn" art,er bis

..f

lr

;j"[1]

:10i

'6.I~ follows that. the plaintiffs have no rightto claim a part.t.1'ienof t.he pr-«fpvt-ies lert. by Hethar·aed that their wit aaO\lld t,e aiand.ned..

7..ln the r••lt., 'the appeal 1• allowed, t.he deoreeor the court below ts reversed and the plaintiffs' suit1• dlsmiaaed.Partiea will bear their ooat• 1n lk>tb 21stDecember 1955,•K.i. iii , G.a.:, D •C.KUM.ARA PILLAI,3

~e....J 1I rrue copy IIf~I/)t-S«6.°,Hepurtoyr if Heeg:gii ssttrraarr