1. The plaintiff claims to recover one-half of the property which was given to the defendant's husband under Exhibit I by the plaintiff's mother and the plaintiff. The ground on which the plaintiff's title is based is that prior to the death of the defendant's husband, he divorced her and that according to the law by which the parties are governed, the gift became void in consequence of the divorce. The contention apparently is that the property then reverted to the donors, and as they held it as the heirs of the plaintiff's father, the plaintiff and the defendant, who is her sister, are entitled to it in equal shares. The document says that the property is given to the donee as sridhanam, though the word means woman's property and the gift was to a man. It would appear that amongst the Marumakhatayam Moplas of Malabar, gifts are often made to the husband of a girl given in marriage, apparently as a contribution towards the maintenance of the girl and her future children. It was held in Second Appeal No. 1746 of 1895, that such gift became void on the death or divorce of the girl. Now according to Marumakatayam Law, the tarwad is bound to maintain the woman of the tarwad even after the marriage, and, if property is given to a husband for the support of his wife, it stands to reason that, when he divorces her he should give back the property of the donor. The parties in this case are governed by the Muhammadan Law, nor, by the Marumakhatayam Law. A. girl when married passes over to her husband's family under the Muhammadan Law. There is no obligation on the members of her natural family to maintain her after her marriage, even if she is divorced. There is no reason, therefore, for presuming that a rule of construction applicable to a dridhanam gift to a husband where the parties are governed by the Marumakkatayam Law is applicable to such an instrument where the parties are governed by the Muhammadan Law. The plaintiff did not allege any usage amongst Moplas governed by the Muhammadan Law according to which the gift would become void on the defendant's divorce. There is nothing in Exhibit I itself restricting the interest of the decree in any manner. If the gift was really intended for the benefit of the defendant herself and not her husband, the plaintiff would still have no title.
2. No doubt, it appears that a stridhanam gift in favour of the plaintiff's husband was held to convey only a limited estate to him. But the document is not before us and we do not know what its terms were. The result is that we must hold that the plaintiff has not succeeded in proving her title. We reverse the decree of the Courts below and dismiss the suit. The parties will bear each her own costs throughout.