Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"whether mehar was due to the 1st defendant on the date of her husband's death and If so what was its amount?" pursuant to this requisition the subordinate Judge found that the dower or mehar was due to the 1st defendant on the death of her husband and that it was 39 tolas of pure gold. Subsequently the second appeal was referred tothe Full Bench in view of the conflicting decisions. It was found that the Mehar due on the date of husband's death was on her husband's death was not paid and there was no evidence that on her husband's death she was put in possession of the property under any agreement between herself and other heirs as to the dower and it was further found that she was in possession from the date of her husband's death till she sold the house and the sale deed purports to be for the purpose of paying herself the dower. On these facts and circumstances the Full Bench of the Madras High Court consisting of sir Abdul Rahim, Kt. Offg., chief Justice Mr. Justice oldfield and Mr. Justice, Mr. Justice oldfield and Mr. Justice seshagiri ayyar held that a widow with the express or implied consent of the other heirs of her husband obtains possession of the whole or any part of his estate in satisfaction of or as security of her dower, is entitled to retain such possession till her dower is paid. It is held that the possession must be lawful and should not have been acquired by fraud or by force. In Mt. Maina v. Ch. Vakil Ahmad (AIR 1925 pc 63) it is held that where a mahommedan widow obtains possession of her husband's estate wihout force or fraud she is entitled to retain possession till her dower debt is paid. The allahabad High Court in Mt. Imtiaz Begum. V. Abdul Karim, (AiR 1930 All 881) held that widow can retain possession against other heirs of of husband till the debt is paid or satisfied out of usufruct of property and in order to entitle her to retain possession it is not necessar that her possession should have been originated with the consent express or implied of her husband or her husband' heirs the allahabad High Court followed the full bench decision of the madras High Court in (1920) ILR 43 Mad 214: (AIR 1920 Mad 666) (supra) and stretched the principle by holding that the possession simpliciter without fraud or force entitles the widow to retain possession till the dower is satified and possession with consent express or implied or under an agreement with her husband in lieu of dower is not imperative. In Nawab begum v. Hussain Ali Khan (AiR 1937 Lah 589) it is held that the widow has a first charge on the property of the deceased so long as the dower debt, is not paid. In Karpore chand. V. Kidar Nissa the Supreme Court was concerned with the issue whether dower debt can be given priority over other debts on any equitable consideration and in that context it was held that the dower debt cannot be given any preferential charge on the estate and cnstitutes a debt payable paripassu with the demands of other creditors and even in a situation where the widow is in possession of her estate in lieu of her claim for dower witht eh consent of the other heirs or otherwise is not entitled to priority as against his other unsecured creditors. In the context of considering this issue the Supreme Court referred to the decision of the privy council in AIR 1925 pc 63 (supra) and also AIR 1930 All 881 (supra) with approval.