The central legal point established in the judgment is that the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, does not have retrospective effect and does not operate to defeat vested rights, particularly in cases of conversion and forfeiture of property under Hindu Law.

1. The relevant facts of the case have been set out as follows in my judgment dated the 25th October, 1963, which is now sought to be reviewed:

This appeal by the plaintiffs arises out of a suit For partition of an item of property after setting aside a sale deed with respect to it, Ext. D2, of the year 1123. The two plaintiffs and the 3rd defendant are the sons of the second defendant and defendants 4 and 5 are the brothers of the second defendant. Ext. D2 was executed by defendants 2,4 and 5 in favour of the 7th defendant, who assigned his rights under it in favour of the first defendant. It has been set aside by the lower court to the extent of the plaintiffs' share, which has been held to be 1/6th, and partition has been decreed accordingly. In this appeal, the plaintiffs challenge the correctness of the decision that their share is 1/6th and claim 1/4th share in the properly, on the ground that the 5th defendant having renounced Hinduism is not entitled to any share in the property. It was not disputed in this appeal, that such renunciation took place in the year 1104 and that according to the rule of Hindu Law by which the family is governed, the 5th defendant had forfeited his right in the family property. The sole question for decision in this appeal is whether the plaintiffs' share is 1/4th as claimed by them or 1/6th as decreed. This would depend on whether the 5th defendant is entitled to a share in the property; if he is so entitled, the plaintiffs' share can be only 1/ 6th and not 1/ 4th. While there was no dispute as to the rule of forfeiture of property upon conversion in Hindu Law, the sole controversy related to the effect of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850, (Act XXI of 1850) which was extended on the 1st April 1951, to the former Travancore-Cochin State in which this case arose. S.1 of that Act provides:

"So much of any law or usage now in force within India as inflicts on any person forfeiture of rights or property, or may be held in any way to impair or affect any right of in" heritance, by reason of his or her renouncing, or having been excluded from the communion of any religion, or being deprived of caste, shall cease to be enforced as law in any court."

2. By the judgment sought to be reviewed I took the view, that notwithstanding that the conversion of the 5th defendant to Christianity took place before Act XXI of 1850 came into force in the concerned area, if he were to sue for partition of the property after the Act came into force, the rule of forfeiture on conversion cannot constitute a defence & a share would have to be decreed. I also thought, that Khunni Lal v. Gobind Krishna Narain (I. L. R.33 Allahabad 356) decided by the Privy Council and Mitar Sen Singh v. Maqbul Hasan (A. I. R.1928 Oudh 138) decided by the the Oudh Chief Court supported the above view. After fuller argument on this review petition, I am convinced that I had misunderstood the effect of these decisions, for reasons to be stated presently. I therefore allow this review petition, reopen the appeal and under Order XLVII, R.8, C. P. C., direct that a note be made thereof in the register. In the nature of the question involved which was fully argued, the appeal also being posted, I proceed to pass judgment in the appeal.

3. In Gobind Krishna Narain v. Abdul Qayyum (T. L. R.25 Allahabad 546) decided by the Allahabad High Court, one Ratan Singh who was a Hindu & was joint with his son Daulat Singh, became a convert to Mohammadanism in the year 1845, prior to the enactment of Act XXI of 1850. Regulation.7 of 1832 was in force in the Bengal Presidency, the concerned area. By S.9 of that Regulation it was declared that:

"When one party shall be of the Hindu and the other of the Mohammadan persuasion, or where one or other of the parties to the suit shall not be either of the Mohammadan or Hindu persuasions, the laws of those religions shall not be permitted to operate to deprive such party or parties of any property to