SYED AHMED Vs. MUSSA KOYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Now that we have had the document of the 27 August 1897 translated, I think that the appellants being the tangals are clearly entitled to the money which represents the share assigned to the mosque by Mahomed. By that document he gave the tangals power to collect his share of the estate of Kunhayan Koya. They would, I apprehend, have been entitled to demand from the Collector the whole of Mahomed's share in the particular fund and having collected it to keep a third for the mosque, In my opinion this is not a case to which the doctrine of musha can be applied, assuming that the doctrine is in force in this Presidency. I would reverse the award and remand the case for disposal according to law. The costs will abide the result. Benson, J.

(2.) In this case one Kunhayan is said to have held a kanom usufructuary mortgage over certain land for Rs. 100. On Ms death his rights as kanomdar are said to have passed to his widow his half sister and his father's brother's son's son, Mahomed as sharers under Mahomedan law. This Mahomed assigned one-third of his share by a registered deed of gift to the 7 and 8 defendants in the suit. The land was taken up under the Land Acquisition Act and the 7 and 8 defendants claimed a share of the compensation paid.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge disallowed their claim on the ground that the gift was invalid under Mahomedan Law because the property given was not put into the possession of the donees, and also because what was given was an undefined share and therefore invalid according to Mahomedan law by reason of Musha or confusion. The questions raised for our determinations are-- 1. Whether the rules of Mahomedan law are applicable to the case? and 2. If so, whether the gift is invalid according to that law?