Marumakkathayam custom governed Mophla property, and a defeasance clause in a Stridhanam grant was upheld as valid.

Mophlas of North Malabar were treated as governed by Marumakkathayam custom unless a contrary custom was proved, and no sufficient evidence displaced that presumption. A customary Stridhanam gift made for maintenance was not governed by ordinary Muhammadan law, so the consent deed cured the initial defect and the clause providing for devolution on the donee's brothers and sisters if she died without issue was upheld as a valid defeasance arrangement. The earlier decision in the connected suit, tried and disposed of by a common judgment, did not operate as an independent bar by res judicata. The lower appellate court's decree was therefore affirmed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the parties, being Mophlas of North Malabar, were governed by Marumakkathayam law rather than ordinary Muhammadan law; (ii) whether the Stridhanam gift deed and the consent deed created an absolute estate in the donee, and whether the clause providing for devolution on the donee's brothers and sisters on her death without issue was valid; (iii) whether the earlier decision in the connected suit operated as res judicata.

Issue (i): Whether the parties, being Mophlas of North Malabar, were governed by Marumakkathayam law rather than ordinary Muhammadan law.

Analysis: The evidence and the recognized judicial and textual authorities showed that Mophlas of North Malabar generally follow Marumakkathayam law, unless a contrary custom is proved. No reliable evidence was produced to displace that presumption. The prior enactments and the historical treatment of Mophla family property also supported the conclusion that the parties belonged to a Marumakkathayam family.

Conclusion: The parties were held to be governed by Marumakkathayam law.

Issue (ii): Whether the Stridhanam gift deed and the consent deed created an absolute estate in the donee, and whether the clause providing for devolution on the donee's brothers and sisters on her death without issue was valid.

Analysis: The deed was treated as a customary Stridhanam arrangement made for maintenance, not as a grant governed by the ordinary rules of Muhammadan law. The consent deed cured the initial defect arising from non-joinder. The clause directing devolution to the donee's brothers and sisters on her death without issue was upheld as a valid defeasance arrangement, and the restriction against such a clause under Muhammadan law and the Transfer of Property Act was found inapplicable on the footing that the governing law was Marumakkathayam custom.

Conclusion: The defeasance clause was valid and the respondent's brother became entitled to the property on the donee's death without issue.

Issue (iii): Whether the earlier decision in the connected suit operated as res judicata.

Analysis: The two suits were tried together and decided by a common judgment. In that situation, the prior determination did not furnish an independent bar capable of defeating the present appeal as contended.

Conclusion: The plea of res judicata failed.

Final Conclusion: The decree of the lower appellate court was affirmed and the appellant's claim to the suit properties and rents was rejected.

Ratio Decidendi: Where Mophlas of North Malabar are shown to be governed by Marumakkathayam custom, a customary Stridhanam grant made for maintenance may validly contain a defeasance clause directing devolution on specified relatives upon death without issue.

---