138 SUPREME COURT Sezaxcor Crvu, Arrest, No. 7 ov 1027. RAMAH BINT TA’AT 2... Appellant LATON BINTI MALIM SUTAN Respondent Mohammedan Law—Local ond Foreign Law—Judicial Notioe of Local Law—Oral Evidence as to Lew of tho Lond— Admissibility of—Courle Bnactment Section 65-—Harta Sharikat— ‘Jurisdiction of Supreme Court oa. Hold by Acton and Thorne, JJ. (ParrerManby, J., i jan Low ie not foreign but Joval law, 34 the Tocal low is a matter of which reading the judg- mont of Thorne, J., on this appeal, I he has said. ‘Tonic, J.—The appellant in this ense it one af the widows and th admins of she ental ond efits fone Mat Dev Aoooased at the time ‘such tho respondent to. one. half share therein ‘subject to the rights of third persons, and he further declared that the respondent was, slso entitled to share in the deceased's cording. to of Mohamedan Lew, commonly pplication in this oage and if ‘the respondent was entitled to the declaration she sought.NEDERATED MALAY staTES 18 aja Haji Osman, Neither of these witnesses, appears to_have expressed ony Biviah inti confident persopal opinion aa to the Mohomédan Taw, bub "eo tach quoted fam plications upon Mohamedea, Law, ant nin stated what in their view was the law on the matter as gleaned by them from these publications. ‘The question in debate was not, in the view which I toko, a question of foreign li bbut the question was, in the events that hed happened vere the rights of the pl in the estate of her dece atter, of which the Court must take Cont must propound the lew, and it i Court to allow evi essential one of foreign ts before referred were nob properly section 88 of the Bvidenoe Ensetment. rewtonslite voska and th or taxtinony ed trom thos books wre, wrongly ) ng te rng of te appeal Poca or the appedant, dined our sltenton to tro lsl sions, "he fat tthe cave of dues inti Ujang agua Torah bin, Tome rwpoied in Volume 1, PALS. Low Tepe, page th. ‘The twpet of thi caso is vy abo, ‘Tho teal Judge’ was tho lta Sir Thomas Bradell who bald What ie Supreme Cour ad no juraistion to ndjuticnte upon «eat by avored wife aglt er husband fa hn lite Kine to one bal of ed bough ty parties and cultivated by them during marriage.) The leaned Togo in that cate selected to ston Ot of the’ Courta Hane sme, 1005, but wih very gent reapet forthe opinion of tat Ieaaed Chis Susie, it seme to me thet fection of the Gourte ctnient de itsistsion of tho Katie tnd Assistant Kath, but tat it diduat exclude the juaioon of ‘he Bupreme Court in eve a casbr The prevent eny more than seston 68 ofthat Enactnent, which dele ths jordan of Magicten, exclude. furan of the Cour atthe Toalelal Commissioner, “Socio 6$ of the Cours Eosstment No. 1 of 101) is word for word thw smo a tho od sceton 6referring to ‘he repor evidence of applicable to t ‘wrong for the Smolen Law, commonly spoken of as Haria Shaiat, but ere propeny clled Hara, Soponciain, a aulyio Top cave of divoord wie wo Clann gaint hae husband during bie ite time, and mmc silly tt the ine of dior. for labour underalon by her durig ge ond thot if this elim is ob made during the fe time tho tusband her rights are gone) Thave always understoodEUDERATED MALAY STATES 131 lsamed Chief Justice attempted to upervene by allowing ca. evidence of experts in Mohamedun Law. Tt soems to me the 1%, Teton ‘int Malin Sotn, to report upon the whole ease unfettered by any finding of the trial Judge or of this Court. Such of the evidence as hes not been held by this Court to have been wrongly admitted ‘ight well by consent of the patties be used before the referee, well be drawn fo the existing state of the law ting ‘Mohamedans in the Federated Malay States. Mohamedan Law tries of the somo’ State, by local customs having the force of law, and it would not be practicable horefore to pass a Federal Engotment dealing with all the Bates of the Federation, seems to me, however, that State Hnastments might well dealing with the questions of the rights of partios upon slivoree, and upon succession to the eatate of deceased intestates, ‘commonly arise, and giving powsr to the Courla to in more involved cases not covered by the the Enactinent as fo the lew of the matter in debate. Although I have held that the Supreme Sntisdistion to deal with such cases a8 the present, fi ‘would not be more consonant the Mohmedan religion tion of the Supreme ‘properly be excluded by such Eneotment.12 SUPREME COURT ton bint Malin tas, ‘In this suit the question was as to Harte Shovikat should be enforeed in Mobamedans. In the Court of Appeal counsel for the sppellant L/ Siidenes was wrongly admitted since the Cours ‘counsel for the respon- 1¢ case being remitted to the trial Judge for ruference to a special referee under the Arbitration Enastment, jority of the Court. T think the Courts are oo jenoe on Mohamedan Law sg well a8 by virtue ot least of section 57 of practice for many years of receiving evidence on Mf Law not only in disputed cases but lao almost weeldy in the administration of the estates of Mobsmedane, where it is the practice for the Kathls to eorlify the proper shares of the beneficiaries in the circumstances of each case