ZAKERI BEGUM Vs. SAKINA BEGUM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiff in these proceedings (the present appellant) is the sole widow of Khaja Mahomed Ismail Khan, a Mahomedan zemindar, resident at Patna in Bengal. The action was brought in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Patna against the heirs of the deceased Mahomed Ismail, who are in possession of his estate, to recover from them Rs. 50,000, the amount of the plaintiff's dower, alleged to have been agreed upon at the marriage, and unpaid at the death of her husband. The marriage took place on the 19th July 1867 at Lucknow in Oudh, where the deceased was staying on a visit. The deceased died at Patina on the 14th November 1880.

(2.) THE defendants in their defence alleged that the amount of dower agreed on at the marriage was not Rs. 50,000, but Rs. 5,000, and that this was paid in the lifetime of the deceased. They also contended that, as the marriage took place at Lucknow, the contract of dower was regulated by the usages and customs of Oudh, and that by those usages and customs the agreed amount of dower, if excessive, might be reduced by the Court to an amount suitable to the circumstances and position of the husband and wife, and they claimed that if the agreed dower was Rs. 50,000, it was excessive and should be reduced.

(3.) IN support of the plaintiff's case, of ten witnesses called, seven were present at the marriage. These seven, as might be expected, are all related to the plaintiff. They all agree that the dower was fixed at Rs. 50,000 and that this was the minimum dower used in the plaintiff's family, and it was proved that her sister had received a much larger dower. Their statements are all consistent with one another, except in one particular, namely, whether the dower was prompt or deferred. As the witnesses were speaking of what had occurred sixteen years before, it does not appear to their Lordships that this discrepancy should invalidate their testimony on the more important question in dispute, of the amount of dower agreed upon. The question whether the dower was prompt or deferred only affects the reliance to be placed on the witnesses' recollections, as the plaintiff was in any case not bound to sue for her dower till her husband's death, and it is not surprising that she did not do so sooner.