Shariat amendment and customary law: limited statutory scope preserved Marumakkathayam property rules, defeating the constitutional challenge.

The Madras Shariat (Amendment) Act, 1949 was treated as confined to the matters expressly covered by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 and the amendment itself. It made Muslim personal law the rule of decision only for those specified subjects, without abolishing all custom and usage or enlarging proprietary rights. Property interests governed by Marumakkathayam tarwad law were not converted into inheritable shares for intestate succession, and section 16 of the Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873 operated only to the extent of inconsistency. The contrary view that customary Marumakkathayam law had been wholly abrogated was rejected, and the constitutional challenge under Article 19(1)(f) failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the Madras Shariat (Amendment) Act, 1949 was ultra vires Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution on the footing that it abrogated customary Marumakkathayam law and affected property rights in tarwad property.

Analysis: The scope of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937, and the Madras amendment was held to be limited to the subjects expressly enumerated in the enactments. The legislation made Muslim personal law the rule of decision only for the specified matters and did not purport to abolish all custom and usage or to enlarge a Muslim's proprietary rights. It did not convert property interests governed by Marumakkathayam tarwad law into inheritable shares for purposes of intestate succession, and Section 16 of the Madras Civil Courts Act, 1873, was treated as repealed only to the extent of inconsistency with the Shariat Act. The contrary view that the enactments had completely abrogated customary Marumakkathayam law was rejected.

Conclusion: The Act was not repugnant to Article 19(1)(f) of the Constitution and the constitutional challenge failed.

---