Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (3.06 seconds)The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
Section 3 in Estate Duty act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in Estate Duty act, 1953 [Entire Act]
Estate Duty act, 1953
Section 3 in The Cutchi Memons Act, 1938 [Entire Act]
Siddick Hajee Aboo Bucker Sait vs Ebrahim Hajee Aboo Bucker Sait And Ors. on 21 January, 1920
The question next is, whether the subsequent legislation on
which the Revenue relied changed in any way the position as
laid down by Kumaraswamy Sastry, J ?
Abdul Sattar Ismail vs Abdul Humid Sait on 7 March, 1944
In Abdul Satlar Ismail v. Abdul Hamid Sait,(1) Leach, C.J.,
referred to this decision with approval and the distinction
therein made between self-acquired property which a Cutchi
Memon could dispose of by a will without the restriction of
the one-third under the Mahommedan Law, on the one hand, and
joint family property which he could not so dispose of. (pp.
507 to 508).
Ashabai And Anr. vs Haji Tyeb Haji Rahimtulla And Ors. on 23 February, 1882
"There was a time when it was assumed that the
Hindu law of joint property applied to Cutchi
Memons; Ashabai v. Haji Tyeb Haji
Rahimtulla(3) and Mahomed Sidick v. Haji
Ahmed.(4) But these decisions are now obsolete
and the application of Hindu law is now res-
tricted to cases of succession and inheritance
as it would apply in the case of an intestate
separate Hindu possessed of self-acquired
property."
Abdurahim Haji Ismail Mithu vs Halimabai on 3 December, 1915
The
first is in Abdulrahim Haji Ismail Mithu v. Halimabai(2), a
case of Memons who had settled down in Mombasa. Memons, it
is stated there, began to migrate to Mombasa in the latter
half of the 19th century. At the date of the suit, from
which the appeal went up to the Privy Council, there were
about a hundred Memon families settled in Mombasa. The
question which arose in the suit was whether the respondent,
the widow of one of them, was entitled, as against the
appellant, the eldest son of the deceased by his first wife,
lo one eighth share according to Mahomedan law or only to
maintenance under Hindu law which applied to the Cutchi
Memons in India. The respondent had led evidence to show
that during the ten 'years Preceding 'he suit, there were at
least eleven cases in which distribution of estates was
according to Mahomedan law. 'The respondent's contention
was that the Cutchi Memons who migrated lo East Africa had
settled down among Mahomedans there and bad adopted their
customs and traditions, including as a Special custom the
rule as to succession according to Mahomedan law, thus,
diverting, from the rules of Hindu law, which in Cutch they
had retained as their customary law upon conversion to
Islam. The Privy Council held on these facts that :