H H MIR ABDUL HUSSAIN KHAN Vs. MUSSAMMAT BIBI SONA DERO
LAWS(PVC)-1917-10-33
PRIVY COUNCIL
Decided on October 30,1917

H H MIR ABDUL HUSSAIN KHAN Appellant
VERSUS
MUSSAMMAT BIBI SONA DERO Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

MIRZA RAJA PUSHPAVATHI VIJAYARAN CAJAPATHI RAJ MANNE SULTAN BAHADUR RAJKUMAR PUSHAVATI VISWESWARA GAJAPATHI RAJ SHRIMATHI RANI PUSHAVATHI VIDYAVATHI DEVI VARU DIED RANI PUSHAVATHI LALITHA KUMARI DEVI DOWAGER VS. PUSHAVATHI VISWESWAR CAJAPATHIRAJ RAJKUMAR OF VIZIANAGRAM:MIRZA RAJA PUSHPAVATHI VIJAYARAM GAJAPATHI RAJ MANNE SULTAN BAHADUR :MIRZA RAJA PUSHPAVATHI VIJAYARAM GAJAPATHI RAJ MANNE SULTAN BAHADUR :MIRZA RAJA PU [LAWS(SC)-1953-3-1] [REFERRED 2.]
INDRAMANI DEVI VS. RAGHUNATH BHANJA BIRBAR JAGADEB [LAWS(ORI)-1960-2-11] [REFERRED TO]
KANWAR MOTI SINGH VS. CHARJO [LAWS(P&H)-1952-12-11] [REFERRED TO]
HARDAYAL VS. MST DAKHAN [LAWS(P&H)-1952-7-21] [REFERRED TO]
AJIT DATT VS. ETHEL WALTERS [LAWS(ALL)-2000-9-2] [REFERRED 11]
MUMTAZ BEGUM VS. S AMAN ULLAH KHAN [LAWS(J&K)-1972-8-3] [REFERRED TO]
SHRI NITIN S/O OMPRAKASH AGRAWAL VS. SMT. REKHA W/O NITIN AGRAWAL [LAWS(BOM)-2017-1-103] [REFERRED TO]
Narayana Misra VS. Surendranath Das [LAWS(ORI)-1985-1-34] [REFERRED TO]
RAFAIL URAON VS. BAIHA URAON [LAWS(PAT)-1956-4-37] [REFERRED TO]
PL PN SUBRAMANIAN CHETTIAR VS. P L P N KUMARAPPA CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-1954-7-2] [REFERRED TO]
JEO VS. UJAGAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1952-9-10] [REFERRED TO]
CHARAN SINGH HARNAM SINGH VS. GURDIAL SINGH HARNAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1960-12-5] [REFERRED TO]
BAHADUR VS. BRATIYA AND ORS. [LAWS(HPH)-2015-6-79] [REFERRED TO]
MAHESWAR NAIK VS. TIKAYET SAILENDRA NARAYAN BHANJ DEO [LAWS(ORI)-1949-3-4] [REFERRED TO]
GANI DAR VS. RAJI (MST ) [LAWS(J&K)-1960-9-2] [REFERRED TO]
NACHHITTAR KAUR VS. KEHAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-2006-4-182] [REFERRED TO]
HIRA DEVI VS. SHRI KIRPA RAM [LAWS(HPH)-2022-7-55] [REFERRED TO]
AMAR CHAND VS. SHANKARI [LAWS(RAJ)-1954-5-7] [REFERRED TO]
MALAKAYYA VS. AVATI BUCHAMMA [LAWS(APH)-1972-6-12] [REFERRED TO]
GHURPATARI VS. SAMPATI [LAWS(ALL)-1975-12-18] [REFERRED TO]
HOORIYA VS. MUNNA [LAWS(MPH)-1955-4-4] [REFERRED TO]
MT. SUKHWANT KAUR VS. S. BALWANT SINGH AND ORS. [LAWS(P&H)-1950-9-14] [REFERRED TO]
LAL SINGH SUKHA SINGH VS. ROOR SINGH BELA SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1952-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
RAM KISHAN AND OTHERS VS. RAM RAKHI AND ANOTHER [LAWS(P&H)-1969-12-38] [REFERRED]
JAIRAM VS. NARAYAN [LAWS(RAJ)-1956-11-33] [REFERRED TO]
MOHARI MAHTO VS. MOKARAM MAHTO [LAWS(PAT)-1963-4-17] [REFERRED TO]
SUKHI VS. BARYAM SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1959-1-5] [REFERRED TO]
SRI BRAHADAMBAL AGENCY AND ORS. VS. S. RAMASAMY CHETTIAR AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-2-157] [REFERRED TO]
ABBASALI SHAH VS. MOHAMMAD SHAH AND OTHERS [LAWS(MPH)-1950-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
ALIYATHAMMUDA BEETHATHEBIYYAPPURA POOKOYA VS. PATTAKAL CHERIYAKOYA [LAWS(SC)-2019-8-4] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Buckmaster, J - (1.)On the 30th January, 1907, Mir Hussein Ali Khan of Talpur died intestate, leaving neither widow nor child. His nearest surviving relations were the plaintiff, Abdul Hussein, the son of his brother by the half-blood, one sister, the first defendant upon the record, and his sister s son, who is the second defendant. His estate, consisting exclusively of personal property, and largely of what we should call personal effects, is of great value, and doubtless also, from the character of many of the articles, of great personal interest to his relations. It is a dispute about the inheritance of this property that has given rise to the present appeal. The deceased was a member of the family of Talpur Mirs of Sind, who were a branch of the large Baluchi tribe. He was a Mahomedan, and, if Mahomedan law governed the question, the rights of the parties would vary accordingly whether the deceased was a member of the Shia or of the Sunni sect. If the former, the sister would inherit the whole estate; if the latter, the plaintiff would be entitled to a half. The plaintiff alleges, however, that the rights of inheritance are not to be determined according to Mahomedan law, but that they are regulated by a custom well-known and distinctly ascertained, by which, notwithstanding the provisions of the Koran, women are excluded from any share in the inheritance of a paternal relation, he further alleges that, if this contention does not prevail, the deceased was a Sunni and not a Shia, and that he is therefore entitled to the more limited rights to which reference has been made. Their Lordships think it is convenient to dispose of the latter contention first.
(2.)Although the holding of religious opinion is a matter of personal faith, and ordinarily it may not be easy to determine what the nature of that faith may be, yet in a case like the present, where the question lies between two sects so sharply divided in ritual and observances, performance of prayers, and public declarations of faith as the Sunni and the Shia, it is readily capable of being determined by definite evidence of action, conduct, and observance. For reasons which their Lordships consider as conclusive, both the Judicial Commissioner, before whom the case was first tried, sitting as District Judge, and the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind, before whom the appeal was heard, have decided that the deceased was of the Shia persuasion, and with this finding their Lordships see no reason to interfere.
(3.)There remains therefore for consideration only the question of custom, and upon this the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal have differed, the District Court holding that the custom was established, and the Court of the Judicial Commissioner of Sind deciding that it was not. It is from this latter decision that the present appoal proceeds.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.