Back
2012 Supreme(Mad) 2266
2012 (3) LW 674
High Court of Judicature at Madras
T. RAJA
K. Sivanandam & Another
Versus
Maragathammal
Second Appeal No.221 of 2006 & M.P.No.1 of 2010
Decided on: 06-06-2012
For the Appellants:N. Ishtiaq Ahmed, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Ms. R.T. Shyamala, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the conversion from Hindu to Christianity does not disqualify the convert from claiming inheritance in the suit property.
Headnote:
Hindu Succession Act - Property Rights - 4(1)(b), Caste Disabilities Removal Act 1850, 14(1) - The court addressed the issue of whether a Hindu widow loses her right of inheritance of her deceased husband's property when she converts to another religion by marrying a Christian. The court held that the conversion from Hindu to Christianity does not disqualify the convert from claiming inheritance in the suit property. The Caste Disabilities Removal Act removed the stigma of inheriting property in case of conversion to another religion. The court confirmed the findings of both the lower courts and dismissed the Second Appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendants to protect her possession and enjoyment of a property purchased from the sister of the defendants. The trial court decreed the suit, which was upheld by the first appellate court. The defendants filed a Second Appeal contending that the sale deed executed by the sister of the defendants in favor of the plaintiff was not valid.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conversion from Hindu to Christianity does not disqualify the convert from claiming inheritance in the suit property. The court confirmed the findings of both the lower courts and dismissed the Second Appeal.
Issues: The issues before the court were whether the sale deed was valid, whether the plaintiff was entitled to permanent injunction, and what other reliefs could be considered.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the conversion from Hindu to Christianity does not disqualify the convert from claiming inheritance in the suit property. The Caste Disabilities Removal Act removed the stigma of inheriting property in case of conversion to another religion.
Final Decision: The Second Appeal was dismissed, and the judgments of both the lower courts were confirmed.
1. The appellants before this court were defendants before the trial Court against whom the plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendants, their men, agents, servants from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the suit property by the plaintiff and also for payment of costs of the suit.
2. (i) The plaintiff-Maragathammal's husband-Kanniappan, D1-Sivanandam and one Poosammal-sister of Kanniappan and Sivanandam, were born to one Sundarammal and Kuppusamy. One Pakkirisamy Pillai who was the brother of Sundarammal and the maternal uncle of plaintiff's husband(Kanniappan), D1-Sivanandam and their sister-Poosammal, married Poosammal. But, unfortunately, within three months of marriage the said Pakkirisamy Pillai died intestate on 12.10.1946 leaving his wife Poosammal. It is also to be noted that Poosammal married her own maternal uncle-Pakkirisamy. During the life time of Pakkirisamy Pillai, he had purchased the suit property in the year 1945 which is having East to West on 54 feet, North to South 25 and = feet, totalling 1,215 sq.ft. on 17.5.1945. After the death of Pakkirisamy Pillai, Poosammal-D1's sister, studied nursing course and joined as a midwife in Poondi hospital. Subsequently, in the year 1956, she remarried one Issac as per the Christian customs and ceremonies. Following the marriage, she also gave birth to two sons-Selvaraj and Victor Devaraj. The plaintiff's daughter was given in marriage to the second son-Victor Devaraj and the said marriage took place on 10.5.1996. Thereafter, on 17.3.1995, Poosammal-sister of plaintiff's husband-Kanniappan and D1-Sivanandam, has sold Pakkirisamy's land property by sale deed 17.3.1995 to the plaintiff. After purchasing the said property under sale deed dated 17.3.1995 bearing document No.843/1995 in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Purasawalkam, Chennai, it has been averred in the plaint that the plaintiff has been in possession and enjoyment of the suit property by obtaining patta and assessment order issued by the Corporation of Chennai by paying the tax thereon. Therefore, it was further averred that when the plaintiff has purchased the suit property from Poosammal, as per the settled law, the plaintiff's possession should be protected and safeguarded. Whileso, the first defendant who is also the brother of plaintiff's husband, and the second defendant-Sivagami-wife of the first defendant, out of jealous irritated over the sale in favour of the plaintiff and to blackmail the plaintiff and to extract money were trying to disturb the lawful possession of the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff was obliged to file a suit for injunction against the defendants and their men from in any manner interfering with the possession and enjoyment of the schedule mentioned suit property.
(ii) A detailed written statement was filed by D1-K.Sivanandam who is the brother of the plaintiff's husband-Kanniappan and the husband of D2-Sivagami stating that the vacant land measuring an extent of 1,215 sq.ft. comprised in Collector's Certificate No.2590, Old S.No.69, Re-Survey No.540/2 in Vyasarpadi village was purchased on 17.5.1945 by Pakkirisamy Pillai, husband of Poosammal as well as maternal uncle of D1 and plaintiff's husband. Pakkirisamy Pillai is the brother of Sundarammal who is the mother of plaintiff's husband, D1 and Possammal. It was also stated that D1's father, mother and Poosammal, Kanniappan and Pakkirisamy Pillai were living together. Whileso, the D1's sister-Poosammal was married to Pakkirisamy and after few months of marriage, Pakkirisamy died on 12.10.1946. Since Poosammal, sister of D1 and also Kanniappan who worked as a mid-wife in Poondi hospital by converting into Christianity, married one Issac, through wed-lock, she had 5 children, out of which one died. The first defendant's sister-Poosammal never visited the parents or living with them after 1956. Therefore, whatever right Poosammal had, after conver
