KAPORE CHAND versus KADAR UNNISA BEGUM AND OTHERS

Citation: [1950] 1 S.C.R. 747 · Decided: 12-10-1950 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

. , 
•f 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
747 
that the Registrar can stay the proceedings. It seems 
1950 
to us that the act of the Registrar in asking the civil 
. 
t 
t 
t . 
d' 
d' 
b f 
. 
Co-opB'atwe 
cour to s ay execu 10n procee ings pen mg 
e ore it Soci•tY of n, bts 
is a clear encroachment on the powers of the executing 
v. 
court and is in excess of his statutory powers and 
Nandlal • 
should have been ignored by the courts. 
As a fresh certificate was issued by the Nazim in 
Mahajan J. 
order to cure a defect that might be said to exist in the 
original certificate because of its having been sent by 
the Madadgar N azim, it is unnecessary to consider the 
contention of the learned counsel that there was 
no proper certificate in this case and the proceed-
ings in execution therefore were 
without · juris-
diction. 
The result therefore is that this appeal is allowed, 
the decisions of all the three courts below are set aside 
and the executing court is directed to proceed with 
the execution of the decree from the stage at which it 
was interfered with by the letter received from the 
office of the Registrar. In the circumstances of this 
case we will make no order as to costs of the proceed-
ings throughout. 
Appeal allowed. 
[IN THE SUPREME CouRT·OF INDIA (HYDERABAD).] 
KAPOJ\E CHAND 
v. 
KADAR UNNISA BEGUM AND OTHERS 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, R. S. NAIK and 
KHALIL UZZAMAN J J.J 
Muhammadan Law-Dower-Widow in possession of husband's 
estate in lieu of dower-Whether entitltd to priority over crediiors-
Nature of widow's lien for dower. 
A Muhammadan widow in possession of her husband's estate 
in lieu of her claim for dower with the consent of the other bairn 
or otherwise is not entitled to priority as against his other un~ 
J9b0 
Oct l'l. 
, ,. , 
secured creditors. There is nothing inherent in the very nature 
\)\ (\.\)~~~ Vl'n\c\1 en\it\es it to priority. 
748 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1950] 
1950 
Ameer Ammal v. 
Sankaranarayan~ Chetty (LL.R. 25 Mad. 
658), Meer Melter Ally v . . mt. Amanee (11 W. R. 212), Mania 
Kapore Chand Bil~i v. Was-i Ahrnod (LI .... R 41 A_ll. fJ58), Hami1·a Btbi v. Zubaid(;, 
v. 
Bibi (A.LR 1916 P.O. 46), Im:iaz Be9"m v. Abdul Karim Khw 
Kadar Unnisa (A.LR. 1930 All. 881) referred to. 
Begum di Others. 
Kulwm Bibi v. Sliiam S.inder La.l (A.LR. 1936 Ail. 600), 
Mst. Ghafooran v. Ram Chandra Dos ( .\.I.R. 1934 All. 168), 
Mohamed 'l'w·abuddin v. Yasin Begum :_17 D.L.R. 224) diRapproved. 
Maina Bibi v. Chaudh>i Vakil Ahmad (52 I.A. 145) explained. 
APPEAL from a judgment of the High Court of 
Hyderabad under article 374 (4) of the Constitution 
of India: Civil Appeal No. 189 of 1950. 
Abdul Wahid Owasi, for the appellant. 
Ahmed Saeed Khan, for respondent No. 1. 
1950. October 12. 
The judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
Khat;lunaman J. 
KHALILUZZAMAN ].-This appeal arises out of execu-
tion proceedings. The appellant, Kapurchand, had a 
money decree, amongst others, against one Mir Hamid 
Ali Khan, husband of the respondent Mst. Kaderunnissa. 
In execution of the decree the house in dispute belong-
ing to the deceased judgment-debtor was attached. 
To the attachment the widow of the deceased raised an 
objection on the ground that she was in possession 
of it in lieu of her outstanding <lower and could not Le 
dispossessed till her claim was satisfied. The objection 
was allowed by the executing court and it was ordered 
that the house be sold subject to the respondent's. 
claim, the decree-holder being entitled to the surplus, 
if any, out of the sale proceeds. 
There was not much 
possibility of the house fetching more in the execution 
sale than the amount due on account of dower. The 
court took the view that the widow's claim for dower 
had priority over the debts due to other unsecured 
creditors and her position was analogous to that of a 
secured creditor. The decreeholder made an applica-
tion in revision to the High Court but without any 
success. 
He then preferred an appeal to the Judicial 
Committee of the State and it is now before us under 
article 374 (4) of the Constitution. 
•• 
S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
749 
The sole point for determination in the appeal is 
1950 
whether a widow in possession of her husband's estate 
in lieu of her claim for dower with the consent of the Kapore Cha"d 
v. 
other heirs or otherwise is entitled to priority as against Kadar unnisa 
his other unsecured creditors. It is conceded that the Bequm" Others. · 
husband died leavi

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.