NIRMA Vs. ABDUL AZIZ KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises under the following circumstances. One Musammat Parbati, the widow of one Ganga Ram, who was a Hindu, instituted a suit claiming, that she, in exercise of her legal rights, wished to make a well, and build a temple on a portion of the property in the possession of which she was as a Hindu widow. She alleged that the defendants to the suit were preventing her from exercising her legal rights and she claimed an injunction to restrain them. The plaintiff got a decree in the court of first instance. The defendants appealed. While the appeal was pending, Musammat Parbati became a convert to Muhammadanism and married one Wali Muhammad. She then put in a petition stating that she no longer wished to prosecute her suit and prayed that her suit might be dismissed. Thereupon the present respondent, Musammat Nirma, the mother of her husband, who would have been entitled to the estate for her life if Musammat Parbati were then dead, made an application that she might be brought upon the record and allowed to defend the appeal. The court below allowed this application. Hence the present appeal.

(2.) The appellants contend that Musammat Parbati did not lose her estate upon becoming a convert to the Muhammadan religion, but that her right to her husband s property was protected by Act XXI of 1850, and that being a Muhammadan she was entitled to contract a legal marriage with her present husband. On the other hand, the respondent contends that under Section 2 of Act XV of 1856, the remarriage of Musammat Parbati worked a forfeiture of her interest in her first husband s estate, and that, therefore, there was a devolution of interest to the present respondent. It was further contended that even if this be not so, Musammat Parbati, though she represented her husband s estate so long as she remained a Hindu widow, ceased to do so when she changed her religion and married again, and that therefore the present respondent, as next reversioner, ought to be allowed to continue the proceedings and protect the estate.

(3.) In our opinion, her conversion to the Muhammadan religion did not divest Musammat Parbati of her interest in her first husband s estate in view of the provisions of Act XXI of 1850. This has been repeatedly held in this Court and by their Lordships of the Privy Council. The last case to which we may refer is the case of Khunni Lal v. Govind Krishna Narain (1911) I.L.R., 88 All., 856. We are also clearly of opinion that Section 2 of Act XV of 1856 does not divest her of her interest in her first husband s estate.