1921 JTR(SC) 7
1921 AIR(PC) 55 ; 1921 25 CWN 866
Privy Council
Sir Lawrence Jenkins, Ameer Ali, Sir John Edge, Phillimore, Justice Buckmaster, JJ.
Mt. Fakrunisa and others -Appellant
Versus
Moulvi Izarus Sadik and others -Resopndent
Decided On : 24-01-1921
Appellate courts will not disturb lower court findings on dower quantum unless the appellant provides sufficient reason. Additionally, an allowance may be granted to the wife's representatives to prevent prejudice resulting from contested claims regarding her rights.
(A) Muslim Personal Law - Dower - Quantum of dower - Dispute over the amount of dower fixed at the time of marriage - When evidence is conflicting and untrustworthy, the appellate court will not disturb the findings of the lower court unless the appellants show a compelling reason or a balance in their favor to justify such alteration.
(B) Dower - Interest/Allowance - Representatives of the wife are entitled to an allowance on the dower amount, not strictly as interest, but as a means of preventing the position of the wife from being adversely prejudiced by unsuccessful controversy raised by the husband's heirs regarding her rights.
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose between the heirs of a husband and the representatives of the wife regarding the amount of dower fixed during marriage. The husband's heirs claimed the amount was Rs. 25,000, while the wife's representatives claimed it was Rs. 1,25,000. The case involved conflicting verbal and documentary evidence, including letters that were alleged to be forgeries.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of showing why the judgment of the lower court should be disturbed. Regarding the cross-appeal, the court determined that the representatives of the wife were entitled to an allowance of 6% to prevent prejudice caused by the litigation.
Issues: Whether the dower fixed at marriage was Rs. 25,000 or Rs. 1,25,000, and whether the representatives of the wife were entitled to interest or an allowance on the dower amount.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will not interfere with the findings of a lower court on a question of fact unless the appellant demonstrates a sufficient balance of circumstances to justify the alteration. Furthermore, an allowance may be granted on dower to ensure the claimant is not prejudiced by the delay and controversy created by the opposing party.
Result: Appeal dismissed. Cross Appeal allowed.
(B) Dower - Interest/Allowance - Representatives of the wife are entitled to an allowance on the dower amount, not strictly as interest, but as a means of preventing the position of the wife from being adversely prejudiced by unsuccessful controversy raised by the husband's heirs regarding her rights.
Facts of the case:
A dispute arose between the heirs of a husband and the representatives of the wife regarding the amount of dower fixed during marriage. The husband's heirs claimed the amount was Rs. 25,000, while the wife's representatives claimed it was Rs. 1,25,000. The case involved conflicting verbal and documentary evidence, including letters that were alleged to be forgeries.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of showing why the judgment of the lower court should be disturbed. Regarding the cross-appeal, the court determined that the representatives of the wife were entitled to an allowance of 6% to prevent prejudice caused by the litigation.
Issues: Whether the dower fixed at marriage was Rs. 25,000 or Rs. 1,25,000, and whether the representatives of the wife were entitled to interest or an allowance on the dower amount.
Ratio Decidendi: An appellate court will not interfere with the findings of a lower court on a question of fact unless the appellant demonstrates a sufficient balance of circumstances to justify the alteration. Furthermore, an allowance may be granted on dower to ensure the claimant is not prejudiced by the delay and controversy created by the opposing party.
Result: Appeal dismissed. Cross Appeal allowed.
Interest - The court referred to this case to justify granting a 6 per cent allowance on the dower amount to prevent the wife's position from being adversely prejudiced.
W.H. Davey, J.M. Parikh, Earle Richards, G.C. O’Gorman, L. DeGruyther
Lord Buckmaster:-
The decision of this appeal depends entirely upon a simple question of fact, but this question has been so complicated by untrustworthy evidence, both verbal and documentary, that its determination is not easy. The real point is whether the dower fixed on the marriage of Moulvi, Zahur-ul-islam and Mt. Sanai Fatima Begum on the 3rd September, 1881, was Rs. 25,000 or Rs. 1,25,000. The appellants, who represent, the heirs of the husband, claim that it was the former sum; the respondents, who are the representatives of the wife, argue for the larger amount. That a dower was in fact fixed is beyond dispute. Some witnesses say that it was fixed at Rs. 25,000 in terms, others that it was fixed in terms at the higher figure: and between these two accounts there is the evidence of other witnesses who say on the one side that it was fixed at Rs. 25,000 or on the other at Rs. 1,25,000, this being the customary sum. The judgment then dealt with evidence and concluded as follows :-
In every appeal it is incumbent upon the appellants to show some reason why the judgment appealed from should be disturbed; there must be some balance in their favour when all the circumstances are considered, to justify the alteration of the judgment that stands. Their Lordships are unable to find that this duty has been discharged. They have not gone into the question of the letters alleged to have passed between the husband and the wife. These documents have been held to be forgeries by the learned District Judge, and this view has been rejected by the Judicial Commissioners. There are suspicious circumstances connected with some of the letters, but suspicion is not proof. The conclusion, however, which their Lordships have reached is independent of such corroboration as the letters would afford were they genuine. They, therefore, express no opinion upon the point.
Upon the cross-appeal claiming interest on the amount of dower their Lordships think that the representatives of the wife are entitled to an allowance, not strictly as interest, but as the means of preventing her position being adversely prejudiced by the unsuccessful controversy raised by the appellants as to her rights, and they fix the amount at 6 per cent. This is in accordance with what was done in the case of Hamira Bibi v. Zubaida Bibi (1).
(1) (1916) 38 All. 581 = 36 I.C. 87 = 43 I.A. 294 (P.C.).
Their Lordships will humbly advise His Majesty that the main appeal be dismissed and the cross-appeal allowed, and that the appellants do pay to the respondents their costs both in the appeal and the cross-appeal.
Appeal dismissed.
Cross Appeal allowed.