Bismilla Begam v. Tawassul Husain

Knox and Karamat Husain, JJ.:— This application for revision is an application by a lady, who as mother-in-law of a Muhammadan gentleman sets forth that she is entitled to Rs. 17,000 out of a debt amounting to Rs. 51,000 due by that gentleman to his wife. Coming to the court the lady says that she gives up her claim to the whole of the 17,000 rupees with the exception of Rs. 800 on the ground that she has no hope of receiving more than Rs. 800 from the estate of the lady to whom the dower debt is due. The lower appellate court refused to grant her the certificate that she asked for under section 7 of Act VII of 1889, and in support of its refusal refers in its judgment to the case of Akbar Khan v. Bilkisara Begam . The learned Judges who decided the last Earned case held that they were bound to follow the ruling laid down in Muhammad Ali Khan v. Puttan Bibi . In that case a Muhammadan, lady, who was entitled to something more than eleven lakhs of rupees as her dower, died, and the father of the deceased lady brought a suit against the husband of the deceased lady to recover the share which he took by inheritance in the dower debt. He applied for a certificate entitling him to collect debts, not to the amount of eleven lakhs of rupees, but to the amount of one lakh fifty thousand rupees, the father's share in that debt. The Judge before whom the application came declined to grant her the certificate unless the applicant paid the two per cent. duty on the whole debt, namely, the debt of eleven lakhs of rupees. His refusal was supported by this Court, and the learned Judges before whom the appeal came observed that there had been a uniform series of decisions in this Court, according to which a certificate cannot be granted-to collect a part only of a debt. We have been referred to no case breaking this uniformity of decisions, with the exception of one case, Akbar Khan v. Bilkisara Begam. This case has not been reported in the authorized, law reports, and we say no more about it than this that the learned Judge, while professing, and one of them with diffidence, to follow the precedent of Muhammad Ali Khan v. Puttan Bibi, seem, in the conclusion at which they arrived, to have overlooked the real point decided in Muhammad Ali Khan v. Puttan Bibi. We are not prepared to decide otherwise than this Court decided in the case of Muhammad Ali Khan v. Puttan Bibi. Hard cases may arise if parties elect to make applications under the Succession Certificate Act, and this case may be one of such hard cases. But in most, if not in all of them, the difficulty can be avoided, it appears to us, by proceedings taken under the Probate and Administration Act. We reject the petition with costs.

Petition rejected.