SHEIK MUHAMMAD ROWTHER Vs. AYEESHA BEEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts are all set forth in the judgment of my learned brother which I have had the advantage of perusing. Since I agree with his conclusions, it is not necessary for me to say more than a few words upon the subject for decision in this appeal.

(2.) The point upon which our learned brother Venkataramana Rao, J., felt some doubt was whether the Full Bench in disposing of the case in Masthan Sahib V/s. Assan Bivi Ammali intended to lay down the law for all Muhammadans, whether Shias or Sunnis. If it did, there is no question about the binding nature of the decision so far as we are concerned, and since the decision is now 37 years old, I should be very reluctant to suggest that it requires reconsideration whatever the nature of the decisions in other provinces might be.

(3.) I do not think there is any room for doubt upon this matter. The order of reference to a Full Bench, which gave occasion for the decision reported in Masthan Sahib V/s. Assan Bivi Ammali states simply that the parties were "Muhammadans". It goes on to state that this Court in the case of Tadiya V/s. Hasanebiyari (1870) 6 M.H.C.R. 9 in 1870 held that: According to Muhammadan law dower is presumed to be prompt in the absence of express contract. The ground of this decision was stated to be that: " The authorities agreed that there was a presumption of Muhammadan law to this effect.