AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The learned Vakil for the appellant has cited no authority of any kind in support of his contention. If the land given to his client as stridhanam was wasted away, he has not satisfied us that either by virtue of custom or contract the appellant is entitled to a further grant of land of equivalent value. Similarly, it was for the 2nd appellant to prove that she having chosen to live away from the family house, was entitled to separate maintenance. She belongs to a Moplah Marumakatayam tarwad and there are no authorities directly bearing on the point. The analogy of a Hindu tarwad is against the appellant''s contention, and she could make good her claim only by proving that the customary law governing a Moplah tarwad is different. She did not adduce any such proof.
The second appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs.