S.P. BHARUCHA, J.

The appellant-wife and the respondent-husband were married under Hindu rites on 25th September, 1974. On 24th September, 1975 the husband filed a petition (being M.J. Petition No. 7405 of 1975) in the City Civil Court at Bombay for annulment of the marriage on the ground of the wifes relative impotency. A petition for divorce on the ground of desertion was thereafter filed by the husband (being M.J. Petition No. 427 of 1983).

2. Consent terms were taken on 10th January 1984 in the petition for annulment. By Clause (1) thereof the petition for divorce was agreed to be heard immediately and the evidence of the husband recorded in the petition for annulment was agreed to be read as evidence therein. By Clause (2) the wife stated that she did not desire to contest the petition for divorce and had no objection to it being made absolute. By Clause (3) wife agreed not to challenge the legality or validity of the husbands second marriage. Clauses (4) and (5) read thus :

"(4) Parties to address the Honble Court on the questions of alimony, pass and future maintenance, as also on the question of the respondent being entitled to ornaments and other expenses as claimed in the Written Statement and the costs of the petitions on the evidence already recorded on behalf of both the parties in Petition No. 7405 of 1975.

(5) The parties agree that findings recorded by the Court on questions in Clause No. 4 above shall be accepted by them as final and binding upon them and there shall be a decree accordingly."

By Clause (6) the parties agreed not to apply for variation or modification or recession of the order as to permanent alimony and maintenance. Under Clause (7), having regard to the clauses that preceded it, the husband withdrew all allegations against the wife relating to relative impotency and cruelty and withdrew the petition for annulment.

3. Counsel for the parties then addressed the Court on the questions of alimony, maintenance and the entitlement of the wife to the property claimed by her in her written statement to the petition for annulment. The learned Judge noted the consent terms and the issues that survived in view thereof, namely,

"(4) Does the respondent prove that she was presented ornaments and articles as stated in para 16 of the Written Statement

(5) Is the respondent entitled to the return of the said ornaments and articles

The learned Judge referred to section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and found that he claim of the wife of the said property was on the basis that it was her exclusive property and not property that belonged jointly to husband and wife. Having regard to the decision of a learned Single Judge of this Court in (Banoo Jal Daruwalla v. Jal C. Daruwalla)1, 65 B.L.R. 750, which dealt with a pari materia provision in the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, the learned Judge held that his jurisdiction under section 27 did not cover the said property. Accordingly, he recorded no finding on issue No. 4 quoted above. The learned Judge awarded to the wife maintenance and costs.

4. This appeal is filed by the wife against the judgment and order of the learned Judge in so far as it does not record a finding in regard to the said property. There is no appeal on either side in regard to the award of maintenance and costs.

5. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads thus :

"Section 27. The disposal of property : In any proceeding under this Act, the Court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife."

Section 42 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, reads thus :

"Disposal of joint property :--In any suit under this Act, the Court may make such provisions in the final decree as it may deem just and proper with respect to property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to the husband and wife."

It will be seen that the provisions are in pari materia.

6. In Banoo Jal Daruwalla v. Jal Daruwalla, 65 B.L.R. 750 : A.I.R. 1964 Bombay 124, K.K. Desai, J., construed section 42 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act. He said that it was clear that thereunder the Court did not deal with questions of title to property and questions arising between husband and wife as co-owners, except only in respect of joint properties at or about the time of marriage. Questions of title to property and questions arising between husband and wife as co-owners, other than those so excepted, had to be disposed of by the ordinary Civil Courts. This judgment answers the issue in the appeal against the wife.

7. But Mr. Rege, learned Counsel for the wife, drew my attention to the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court (sitting at Nagpur) in (Nandini Sanjiv Ahuja v. Sanjiv Birsen Ahuja)2, 1988(3) Bombay Cases Reporter 418. The learned Judge construed section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The took into account the judgments of various High Courts and the judgment in Daruwalla v. Daruwalla. He drew a distinction between the provisions of section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act and section 42 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act on the ground that (a) the marginal note of the two sections differed because the former spoke of "disposal of property" and the latter of "disposal of joint property" and (b) section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act empowered the Court to make a provision with respect to "any property" which may belong jointly to both the husband and wife whereas section 42 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act empowered the Court to make a provision with respect to "property" which may belong jointly to the husband and wife.

8. Where, as here, the section is unambiguous the marginal note may not be used as an aid to its interpretation.

9. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act deals with "any property" presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and wife. Section 42 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act deals with "property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and wife". That the word "any" proceeds the word "property" in section 27 and not in section 42 makes no difference. The jurisdiction of the Court is confined by both provisions to the property that has been presented at or about the time of marriage and which belongs jointly to the husband and wife.

10. In my view, therefore, the construction placed by the judgment in Daruwalla v. Daruwalla upon section 42 of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act is the correct construction to place upon the pari materia provision of section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act.

11. Mr. Rege submitted that there being a difference between the views expressed by the two learned Single Judges of this Court, I ought to make a reference to a large bench. I cannot do so because I find no difficulty infollowing the earlier judgment in Daruwalla v. Daruwalla.The wife may carry this judgment and order in appeal.

12. Mr. Rege suggested that the learned Judge of the City Civil Court has in error in deciding the question in regard to property as he did because the parties had, by Clause (4) of the consent terms, conferred the jurisdiction to decide it upon him. If the Court has no jurisdiction under law, the parties cannot validly confer it

13. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed.

14. There shall be no order as to costs.

Appeal dismissed.