Muhammad and other(1 ), commonly known as the Agha Khan's case, the que&tion wa8 nol as 1egards the rules of sucoossion and inheritance, but whether the Khojas were to be considered as orthodox Sunnis or Ismailia Shias. Arnould, J., once again con· sidered the history of their conversion, their religious book called 'Dashavatar' (the ten incarnations) and came to the conclusion that Khojas represented "the dissidence of dissent" in its most extreme form; the Ismailias being dissenters from the main body of Shias, as these i12 tum were dissenters from the main body of or.hodox Islam". (Wilson's Anglo Muhammadan Law, 33-34 (6th ed.). From these premises, Westropp, C.J., took a step forward in Shivji Hassam v. Datu Mavji Khoja(2 ) and held that Hindu law applied to the Khoias in all matters relating to proper y, succession and inheritance, the Khojas having retained that pai t of their prsonal law to which till their conversion they were accustomed. Similarly, In the Goods of Rahimbhai A/oobhai(3), Jter referring to the previous decisions, Sargeant, J., declared that lhe Khojas for the last twenty .five years at least had been regarded by the ·court in .all questions of inheritance as converted Hindus, who 01igjnally retained the Hindu law of inheritance, which had since been modified by special customs, an' that a uniform practire had prevailed during that period of applying Hindu law lo1 them in all questions of inheritance, save and except when such a special custom had been proved. The consequence of such a proposition was thll'! the burden of proof Jay on the pers:m who st up •uch a special custom derogatory to the Hindu L~w. In Rahimathai v. Hirbai,(') Westropp, C.J., once again declared :
