V. Chitambaresh, J.

"A nun, at best, is only half a woman, just as a priest is only half a man."

said Henry Louis Mencken, the American journalist, satirist and social critic. But law recognises a nun as a full woman and a priest as a full man particularly in regard to inheritance and succession of their personal property.

2. Raphael and his wife Mary Raphael had three children by name George, Xavier and Eleeswa and it is not in dispute that George pre-deceased his parents while Xavier entered the religious Order as a priest. The parents had executed Ext.B1 joint Will bequeathing the plaint schedule property to Xavier (the first defendant) followed by Ext.B2 Codicil by Mary Raphael alone. Ext.B2 Codicil does not relate to the plaint schedule property and only the validity of Ext.B1 Will and the legality of the bequest made thereunder fell for consideration in the suit. Three children of George (the plaintiffs) contended that no rights flowed under Ext.B1 Will to the first defendant since he had even earlier become a priest after taking a vow of poverty. The plaintiffs asserted that the first defendant was at best a manager only who had suffered a civil death on becoming a priest and that the plaint schedule property is to be divided eschewing his share.

3. The first defendant as well as defendants 2 to 4 (who are the other children of George) contended that Ext.B1 Will is valid and that the bequest in relation to the plaint schedule property is legal. The fact that the first defendant had become a priest in the year 1943 much before Ext.B1 Will came into effect was conceded even though the taking of a vow of poverty by him was disputed. The first defendant had on the strength of Ext.B1 Will executed two sale deeds in respect of a portion of the plaint schedule property in favour of the second defendant. It was the case of the defendants that the sale deeds (Document Nos.1020/1995 and 737/1995) are legal and valid and the balance extent of the plaint schedule property is not liable to be divided.

4. The plaintiffs sought partition of the plaint schedule property excluding the first defendant and also for a declaration that the two sale deeds executed by him are not binding on the plaint schedule property. The court below has passed a preliminary decree for partition directing the plaint schedule property to be divided into six shares and allotment of one share to each of the plaintiffs. The defendants have come up in appeal pointing out that the court below has applied the principles of Canon Law ignoring the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The plaintiffs have filed a memorandum of cross objections contending inter alia that even the due execution of Ext.B1 Will and Ext.B2 Codicil have not been proved in accordance with law.

5. It will be profitable at this juncture to advert to Section 29 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which is applicable to an 'Indian Christian' as defined in Section 2(d) thereof and the same is extracted below:

"29. Application of part:- (1) This part shall not apply to any intestacy occurring before the first day of January, 1866, or to the property of any Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina.

(2) Save as provided in sub-section (1) or by any other law for the time being in force, the provisions of this Part shall constitute the law of India in all cases of intestacy." (emphasis supplied)

We heard Mr. Sabu George, Advocate on behalf of the appellants and Mr. S. Ramesh Babu, Senior Advocate on behalf of the supporting respondent who painstakingly took us to the history of the legislation. We also heard Mr. M.S. Narayanan, Advocate and Mr. P. Babu Kumar, Advocate on behalf of the contesting respondents as well as Mr. Liji. J.Vadakkedom, Advocate as amicus curiae in the case.

6. The Canon Law is after all a body of principles, standards, rules or norms internal to the church distinguished from the civil law [See: Rev. P.M.A. Metropolitan v. Moran Mar Marthoma (AIR 1995 SC 2001)]. The C