Reconversion to Hinduism did not automatically revive coparcenary relationship, and son's interest in family property was governed by Hindu law.

Patanjali Sastri, J.

1. This appeal raises questions of some importance as to the status of the members of a Hindu family, who having been converted to Christianity, are subsequently, reconverted to their old faith.

2. The appellant is the son of the first respondent and he sued for partition of his half share in the family properties, claiming that a mortgage executed by the first respondent in favour of the third respondent and a Court sale in favour of The fifth respondent in execution proceedings instituted against the first respondent are not binding on his share in the properties. The Court below has upheld both the transactions in their entirety and this appeal has been preferred challenging the correctness of that, decision.

3. The facts material for the decision of this appeal may be briefly stated. The appellant was born on the 1st July, 1914. In 1.917, the first respondent and his wife became converts to Christianity and the appellant was also baptised in the same year. In 1930 while the appellant was still a minor, the first respondent executed the mortgage Ex. X which is one of the transactions now impeached in favour of the third respondent for Rs. 7,000 for discharging antecedent debts due to third parties. The mortgage was assigned to the fourth respondent in March, 1932 and it is admitted that only a sum of about Rs. 340 remains payable under it. The first respondent also borrowed Rs. 800 in November, 1930, from the local Co-operative Society, the second respondent herein, for discharging a debt due to another creditor. As this sum was not duly repaid the society brought claim No. 1793 of 1932 before the Registrar of Co-operative Societies and obtained an award which under the rules framed under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1912, was executable in the civil Courts as if it were a decree of the Court. In such execution proceedings items 1 to 7 and 9 of the plaint A schedule were brought to sale and purchased by the fifth respondent on the 21st January, 1935, for Rs 2,000 subject to the mortgage already referred to which covered all the A schedule properties.

4. Now, the appellants contention is that the conversion of his family resulted in a severance of the coparcenary status, that debts incurred by his father after such conversion, could not bind the appellant or his share in the properties which were all admittedly ancestral and that neither the mortgage nor the Court: sale referred to above could affect the appellants interests in the properties. On the other hand, the alienees contended that the appellants family had all along been behaving as if they were Hindus of the Kamma caste and were treated as such by other Hindus of the same community in the village, that in such circumstances even if the appellant and his father had at one time become Christians, they must be deemed to have been reconverted to Hinduism and that, in any case, the appellant having held himself out to be an undivided son of the first respondent and a member of a joint Hindu family, was estopped from pleading the contrary.

5. The trial Court held that notwithstanding their conversion to Christianity in 1917, the conduct of the parties showed that* they must have forsaken their new religion and gone back to their old faith, and that even if they continued to be Christians throughout, they must be taken to have elected to abide by the Hindu law notwithstanding their conversion to Christianity. In view of these findings, it upheld the validity of both the transactions applying the rules of Hindu law. In the lower appellate Court, it was urged for the appellant that it was not open to the trial Court to find that the appellant and his father had been reconverted to Hinduism as no specific issue was raised on the point, that on the footing that the parties remained Christians, no coparcenary as known to the Hindu law could exist between the appellant and his father as they were governed in matters of testamentary and intestate succe