PUTHIYA PURAYIL ABDURAHIMAN, KARNAVAN AND MANAGER OF THE TAVAZHI TARWAD AND ANR. Vs. THAYATH KANCHEENTAVIDA AVOOMMA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned District Munsif of Cannanore has referred the following question for decision by this Court:

(2.) DEFENDANTS 9 and 10, who are the karnavan and the senior most anandiravan of the second tavazhi, contended that the said Act was void because it was repugnant to the provisions of Article 19, Clause (1)(f) of the Constitution.

(3.) MR . K.V. Venkatasubrahmania Iyer, who appeared on behalf of defendants 9 and 10, frankly conceded that he could not usefully urge the plea that Madras Act XVIII of 1949 was unconstitutional on the ground that it contravened Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution, if the relevant provision, viz., Section 2 is construed in the only way it should be, viz., that it is only in respect of the enumerated matters that custom or usage has been abrogated, and the result of the Act is not to totally repeal by implication all the prior enactments, customs and usages relating to Moplah Muslims, who were governed by the Marumakkathayam Law. Undoubtedly, the impugned Act does not purport to repeal any statutes not mentioned therein, nor does it in general terms enact that custom and usage have been completely abolished.