Residuaries

@ Author,

The statement of asked law in Mulla's book on Mohammedan Law in para 66 and below illustrations (s) and (t) which are to be found in that paragraph portray the effect of asked Rule-

"(s) Husband 1/2

Daughter's son 1/2

Note - The daughter's son belongs to the class of distant kindred. The husband is not therefore entitled to the surplus by return and the same will go to the daughter's son the same will go to the daughter's son as a distant kinsman

(t) Wife 1/4

Brother's daughter 3/4

Note -The brother's daughter belongs to the class of distant kindred. The surplus will therefore go to her as the wife is not entitled to the return."

The second illustration is based on the enunciation made by the High Court of Calcutta in Re. Koonari Bibi v. Dalim Bibi (1884) ILR 11 Cal 14 at p. 16 in which it was explained that under the Mohammedan Law a widow has no claim to the return or residue of her deceased husband's estate as against other heirs and that the distant kindred take the residue in preference to the widow. 

But in the absence of other heirs (and "distant kindred" are heirs) the widow is entitled to the "return" as against the bat-ul-mal, or public treasury. And this is in accordance with authority.'

Further in para 67 of Mulla's book there is an equally clear elucidation of the law. According to that elucidation, if the only sharer be a husband or wife, and there be no relation belonging to the class of residuaries, the husband or wife will take his or her full share, and the remainder of the estate will be divided among distant kindred.