KATHIYUMMA Vs. URATHEL MARAKKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The parties are Sunni Mahomedana belonging to the Hanafi subject. The question I have to decide is whether the claim of the wife (the plaintiff) for deferred dower is barred by limitation under Art. 104, Lim. Act. That article reads thus: By a Mahomodan Three When the mar- for deferred dower. years. riage is dissolved by death or divorce.

(2.) The husband (the defendant) pleads that the talak was validly effected more than three years before the suit and that it is therefore barred. The Munsif overruled this contention and gave judgment for plaintiff. The Subordinate Judge, finding that the claim was barred by limitation, dismissed the suit.

(3.) The Subordinate Judge finds that the defendant pronounced a valid talak on 21 July 1919 and requested the Kazi to communicate the fact to the plaintiff who was informed of it by that official on 24 August. On these findings he has held that there was a valid divorce on 21 July 1919 and that the suit filed on 25 July 1922 was barred. The District Munsif has, on the other hand, found that the talak was pronounced on 21 August and held that the suit was within time.