Open Access Research Article
A Case Analysis On Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Husaini Begam (By- Jumana Raja)
Published Paper
Article Details
A Case Analysis
On
Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Husaini Begam
Authored By- Jumana Raja
|
Citation
|
(1910) 12 BOMLR 638
|
|
Date of
Judgement
|
07/06/1910
|
|
Name of the Court
|
Privy Council
|
|
Name of the Judges
|
Lord
Macnagthan, Lord Collins, Sir Arthur Wilson, Mr. Ameer Ali
|
Table of Contents
Abstract
This case is in relativity to the
exception of doctrine of privity of contract. A Doctrine of privity of contract
is when no one other than the parties of the contract are through law allowed
to enforce or protects their rights. To the doctrine, this case is one of the
exceptions in terms of beneficiary. It revolves around how fathers of minor
plaintiff and her husband executed an agreement wherein the plaintiff after her
reception shall receive Rs.500 every month as kharch-i-pandan for her. Due to
some internal differences, a couple of years later the plaintiff left her
husbands house, following this she stopped receiving the kharch-i-pandan. Upon
denial from her father-in-law, the defendant, to be paid the pandan, she filed
a suit against the defendant, initially to the subordinate judge of Agra.
Facts of case
·
Husaini
Begam the plaintiff, daughter of Muhammad Fida Ali Khan, is a Mohammedan lady
who was married to the son of, Khwaja Muhammed Khan the defendant, Rustam Ali
Khan.
·
On
the 25th of October 1877, her father and father-in-law had executed
an agreement that stated about kharch-i-pandan which is common in Mohammedan
Law, to be given to the plaintiff, of Rs. 500 every month from the income of
certain property in Agra District & a Jagir in Dhopur State which is kept
liable as charged. It was decided that from the day of their reception into
conjugal domicile, this agreement would come into place.
·
They
were to be wed on November 2nd 1877 according to the agreement. Both
Husaini Begam and Rustam Ali Khan were minors at the time of their marriage,
and hence their reception didn’t take place until 1883 which was six years
after their marriage. From that day this agreement had come into effect.
·
She
lived with her Husband until 1896 which was nearly 13 years, whereafter due to
certain differences that arose, she left her husband’s house and started
staying in Moradabad from thereforth. The defendant had then discontinued her
kharch-i-pandan payments since then.
·
Her
husband had raised no action before against his wife for restoration of those
conjugal rights after she had left the house. But her father-in-law had since
then discontinued paying her kharch-i-pandan of Rs. 500 per month. She then
filed a suit against her father-in-law claiming for her kharch-i-pandan arrears
upto the end of October 1903 to be granted as he had refused to grant her
those.
·
This
case was first taken to the subordinate judge of Agra by the plaintiff Husaini
Begam in 1901. It was brought to attention that she was a third party to the
contract and had left her marital home. Using the precedent of Tweddle v.
Atkinson (1861)[1],
it was argued that a third party to a contract cannot be involved in
bringing a suit. The Judge passed a judgement on August 16, 1904.
·
An
appeal was further filed in Allahabad High Court, where it was argued that the
agreement was illegal and was also opposed to public policy. The court
witnessed arguments from the both sides each justifying their own stance. The
plaintiff had argued that there were no conditions or any provision stated that
talks about the discontinuance of that kharch-i-pandan.
·
The
defendant pleaded that the plaintiff was no party to this agreement and when it
was executed she was a minor at that time and hence cannot take advantage of
such and sue upon it. The court also discovered that the reason the plaintiff
left her husbands house was because her husband had a habit of entertaining
prostitute in their house or misconducting himself and these were the factors
that led her to move out of her marital home. And on November 27, 1906 the high
court bench announced their judgement.
·
Unsatisfied
with the judgement passed, this case was further taken up to the privy council.
Issues Of
The Case
1.
Is the plaintiff legally entitled to bring in this legal action against
the defendant being a third party to the agreement based off on the doctrine of
privity of contract
2.
Is she still entitled to receive kharch-i-pandan as she left her marital
home and refused to reside with her husband
Synopsis Of
The Judgement
When the case was first brought to
the subordinate judge, it was argued by the defendant that they were not liable
to pay her on two grounds being:
1.
The
plaintiff was not a party to the agreement as the agreement took place between
only the defendant and the plaintiffs father, and
2.
As
the plaintiff had refused to live with her husband and conveyed her misconduct,
she had also refused her right to receive the allowance as well.
To the court, evidence was presented
to prove the plaintiffs misconduct but was considered as not legally proved.
But the judge conclusively decided that the plaintiffs refusal to live with her
husband was satisfactorily proved, and to this she will not be entitled to the
allowance. With furtherance to this, the judge dismissed the suit.
The plaintiff then appealed to the
high court, where the arguments presented revolved solely around proving the
question of whether the plaintiff has the right to maintain this action or not.
The judges noticed none of the sides had mentioned about any evidence on the
record. They also followed that in the agreement, there had been no mention or
any provision that was provided that stated about the plaintiffs chastity or
unchastity to receive the said payment of annuity. The judgement issued by the
high court judges was that the plaintiff had a transparent right to sue under
the agreement that was previously enforced. This judgement overruled the
previous judgement of the subordinate judge.
To this judgement, the defendant then
had filed a further appeal to the privy council. Now the appellant had firstly
focused on proving using a precedent of tweddle v. atkinson (1861)[2]
that as the respondent was a third party to the agreement, she should not be
allowed to take any advantageous benefits of the provisions of the agreement.
And secondly, as the respondent had left her husbands house they argued that as
the kharchi-pandan is defined, she is ought to receive the money only as long
as she lives with her husband. The lordships passed the judgement that firstly,
the precedent used will be considered as an action of assumpsit which shall not
be applicable to this case given the facts and circumstances that were
presented on the basis of common law. And secondly, the Kharch-i-pandan in some
analogy to the pin-money of English system is still apart from each other as it
does not impose any restriction on the wife to be living with her husband to
receive such money. So, the judges believe that the judgment of the high court
passed, is right in its entirety and proceeded to uphold it further. Hence,
making the appellant liable to bear the costs, and dismissed the appeal.
Critical
Analysis
There is a doctrine of privity of
contract which states that “contracts should not give rights or obligation to
entities other than those who are parties to the contract”. This case is proved
to be an exception to this doctrine on the basis of trust. The lordships
believed that given the culture among Indian communities as well as the
mohammedans, where marriage is contracted for mostly minors by their legal
guardians or parents, it would prove as injustice if it would be considered in
the same manner any other case would, therefore they believed this doctrine
should not be upheld in this case. This case establishes that not every case is
to be considered in the same manner as another. The ruling of the subordinate
judge was extremely biased and unsatisfactory to the judges as well, where
wrong expressions were conveyed by the judge showing a certain prejudice that
contested the nature of law. The final ruling by the privy council, seemed to
consider that even if one is to leave the house of the husband, the
kharch-i-pandan is not subject to forfeiture unless or until there have been
provisions made in an agreement regarding the same. The doctrine of privity is
not necessarily applied everywhere, there are few cases that prove as
exceptions to this doctrine based on the circumstances in which the facts are
produce on.
Bibliography
Websites:
1.
Indiankanoon.org.
(2022). Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan vs Nawab Husaini Begam on 7 June,
1910. [online] https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1020411/
2.
Patil
Rushikesh (2020). Case Summary: Khwaja Muhammad Khan vs. Husaini Begum.
[online] LawLex.org. https://lawlex.org/lex-bulletin/case-summary-khwaja-muhammad-khan-vs-husaini-begum/23431
3.
Nawab
(2021). Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan vs Nawab Husaini Begam Case Summary
(1910) - Law Planet - Legal News, Law Updates & Law Exams Preparation.
[online] Law Planet - Legal News, Law Updates & Law Exams Preparation. https://lawplanet.in/nawab-khwaja-muhammad-khan-vs-nawab-husaini-begam-case-summary-1910/
4.
Svkm.ac.in.
(2022). Search Result. [online] https://ezproxy.svkm.ac.in:2090/Members/SearchResult.aspx
5.
The Fact
Factor. (2019). Khwaja Muhammad Khan v Hussaini Begum Archives - The
Fact Factor. [online] https://thefactfactor.com/tag/khwaja-muhammad-khan-v-hussaini-begum/
6.
Googleusercontent.com.
(2022). Nawab Khwaja Muhammad Khan v Nawab Husaini Begam on 07 June
1910 - Judgement - LawyerServices. [online] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:38WReJvV_-EJ:https://www.lawyerservices.in/Nawab-Khwaja-Muhammad-Khan-Versus-Nawab-Husaini-Begam-1910-06-07+&cd=11&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=in
Article Information
A Case Analysis On Khwaja Muhammad Khan v. Husaini Begam (By- Jumana Raja)
Authors: Jumana Raja
- Journal IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Published 2022/10/13
- Volume 2
- Issue 7
About Journal
International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis
- Abbreviation IJLRA
- ISSN 2582-6433
- Access Open Access
- License CC 4.0
All research articles published in International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis are open access and available to read, download and share, subject to proper citation of the original work.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of International Journal for Legal Research and Analysis.