Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

22. These observations are, in my opinion, an important limitation upon the interpretation of the passage on which so much reliance was placed at the Bar in the argument for the appellants. The general effect of the ruling in the case last cited is that, according to Muhammadan law, the acknowledgment and recognition of children by a father as his sons gives them the status of sons capable of inheriting as legitimate sons, and this rule was affirmed again by the Privy Council in Sadakat Hossein v. Syed Mahomed Yusuf, L. R., 11 I. A., 31; I.L.R., 10 Cal., 663, where their Lordships expressly refrained "from offering any opinion upon the very important question of law" whether "the offspring of an adulterous intercourse could be legitimated by any acknowledgment" (p. 36). This last reservation is to my mind a most significant one, as showing that the passage which I have quoted from their Lordship's judgment in Ashruf-ood-Dowlah Ahmed Hossein Khan v. Hyder Hossein Khan, 11 Moo. I. A. at p. 113, must not be understood loosely in the sense of being an abstract enunciation of the law applicable to all cases; for I cannot help feeling that if that passage were to be interpreted loosely and regardless of the facts of the case in which those observations were made, there would have been no necessity for reservation of opinion by their Lordships in the case of the acknowledgment of an offspring of an adulterous or even of an incestuous intercourse. Illegitimacy under the Muhammadan law, as indeed under other systems, arises from the absence of a lawful matrimonial relation between the parents of the child; and if illegitimacy which is proved and placed beyond doubt were no impediment to an acknowledgment, there would be no logical reason why the offspring of an adulterous or incestuous intercourse should not acquire the status of legitimate children when acknowledged by the father.

25. Not a single authority of that law has been quoted, and I am not aware of any, which would justify the conclusion that legitimacy of descent from a father is not an absolutely indispensible condition precedent to the very existence of the right of inheritance from the father, and I have already shown that children born of zina (which means fornication, adultery, or incest) can never be legitimated or entitled to inherit from their father. Nor can such children he made legitimate by any kind of acknowledgment where the illegitimacy is a proved and established fact. The Muhammadan law of acknowledgment of parentage with its legitimating effect has no reference whatsoever to cases in which the illegitimacy of the child is proved and established, either by reason of a lawful union between the parents of the child being impossible (as in the case of an incestuous intercourse or an adulterous connection), or by reason of marriage necessary to render the child legitimate being disproved. The doctrine relates only to cases where either the fact of the marriage itself or the exact time of its occurrence with reference to the legitimacy of the acknowledged child is not proved in the sense of the law as distinguished from disproved. In other words, the doctrine applies only to cases of uncertainty as to legitimacy, and in such cases acknowledgment has its effect, but that effect always proceeds upon the assumption of a lawful union between the parents of the acknowledged child. This is abundantly clear from the authorities from which my brother Straight has already quoted. Among those authorities the passages from the first volume of the Fatawa Alamgiri may at first sight contradict the view to which I have given expression, and I am therefore anxious to explain that those passages have no such effect. The first of those texts only shows that an acknowledgment of parentage when duly made cannot be negatived. The second text, which relates to the case of a majbub From which means the removal of the penis only. (Durr-ul-Mukhtar, p. 267). See footnote at p. 27, Baillie's Dig, acknowledging a child and such acknowledgment taking effect, notwithstanding the acknowledger's mutilated condition, proceeds upon the general principle of Muhammadan law against bastardizing children, and the words "the child necessarily becomes his even without proof of sexual intercourse" which occur in the text must not be understood to mean anything beyond the rule that even in such a case acknowledgment of parentage obviates the necessity of ascertaining either the time or the extent of the mutilation of the acknowledger's person. The text assumes the existence of a valid marriage and the possibility of the acknowledged child's legitimate descent from the acknowledger, and I have no doubt that it would be misunderstanding the text if it were held to mean that even where there is a physical impossibility of the child's descent from the acknowledger, the child becomes of one who could not be his father. The reason of the rule relates not to any theory of adoption, but to the theory that an acknowledgment of parentage obviates any investigation as to the physical condition of the acknowledger's potency or impotency for procreating the offspring of a valid marriage. The same is the explanation of the latter part of the second text which my brother STRAIGHT has quoted from the Fatawa Kazi Khan.