The adoption of ascetic life results in civil death, precluding claims to ancestral property under Hindu law, as established by the Evidence Act.

JUDGMENT :

EASWARAN S., J.

Has the concept of civil death of a person, who chooses an ascetic life (sanyasi), lost relevance on coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 ? This Court is called upon to examine the issue because the plaintiff claims that he has not adopted the life of an ascetic, whereas the defendants contend that the plaintiff consciously chose the life of an ascetic and thus is precluded from claiming the right over the family property.

1. Interestingly, the plaintiff and the defendants in O.S.No.386/2002 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, Chengannur, a suit for partition, have come up in these second appeals, respectively, questioning the manner in which the Sub Court, Chengannur rendered the judgment dated 15.01.2015 in A.S.No.270/2008, an appeal by the plaintiff. By the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 19.12.2007, the suit filed by the plaintiff for partition was dismissed, and the plaintiff carried forward the challenge in appeal. In the first appeal, the dismissal of the suit was reversed and the suit was decreed. The plaintiff in his second appeal contends that the quantum of shares allotted to him is not correct. The defendants, on the other hand, are questioning the mode of reversal of the judgment of the trial court, in RSA No.698/2015.

2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the appeals are as follows:

In the wedlock of Narayan Moosath of Edakattil Illom with Subhadra, the 1st defendant was born. Subhadra died and Narayan Moosath remarried making the 4^th defendant his 2^nd wife. The plaintiff, 2^nd defendant, one Padmaja and one Jalaja were born in that wedlock. By partition deed No.4206 of 1954, the plaint schedule properties and other properties were set apart as Saka share of Narayan Moosath, plaintiff, 4th defendant, the child in her womb and the children to be born later. The 2^nd defendant and other two daughters were born later. During 1958, a partition was effected as deed No.4155 among the family members, dividing them into three and allotted shares. Narayan Moosath and minor child, Savithri, who died during her minority, were the first party and A schedule was allotted to them. Certain properties were allotted to Narayan Moosath as his individual share. The plaintiff, deceased Savithri, the 4th defendant and the child in the womb and other children to be born later were made as second party and B schedule was allotted to them. The 1^st defendant, who was a major at the time, was made a third party and due share was allotted to him also. The plaint A schedule item No.2 property belonged to Narayan Moosath, is in possession of the 1^st defendant on behalf of the Illam. Narayan Moosath expired in the year 1964. Sisters of the plaintiff were married using the funds spent by the plaintiff, 4^th defendant and others and, hence, they relinquished their rights over their shares. Defendants 1 and 2, along with the 4^th defendant and the sisters of the plaintiff, created partition deed No.1191 in the year 1994 without the knowledge of the plaintiff and not allotting due share to him. Though the plaintiff demanded partition, the defendants were not amenable. Hence, the suit.

2.2 Defendants 1, 2 and 4 resisted the suit. It was contended that the plaintiff left his native land at a young age and had become an ascetic by adopting Sanyasa. Neither the 4^th defendant nor her children were parties in the partition deed of the year 1954. Narayan Moosath had no right to sell the property allotted to the minor 1^st defendant. As per the partition deed of the year 1958, existing minors and the children to be born to the 4^th defendant were allotted B schedule and were treated as