Skip to content


K.P. Chandrasekharappa Vs. Government of Mysore - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily;Property
CourtKarnataka High Court
Decided On
Case NumberAppeal No. 104 of 1949-50
Judge
Reported inAIR1955Kant26; AIR1955Mys26; ILR1953KAR563
ActsMuhammaddan Law; Indian Succession Act; Hindu Law; Caste Disabilities Removal Act, 1850
AppellantK.P. Chandrasekharappa
RespondentGovernment of Mysore
Appellant AdvocateV. Krishnamurthy, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateAdv. General
Excerpt:
.....grandson of shankarappa and the son of channabasavaiah. further, it is held that suit schedule properties are ancestral properties. however, since a clear finding has been recorded by the courts, that their was- partition among lingappa aud gangaiah during their life time about 50 years back before filing of the suit which was within the knowledge of channabasavaiah and that the said partition has not been challenged by said channabasavaiah and the suit came to be hied only during the year 1982. the before, the courts below have rightly held that the suit o plaintiff is barred by limitation. (b) liquation act, 1963 - article 110 - suit by a person excluded from a joint family property to enforce a right to share therein - suit filed by the plaintiff after lapse of 12 years -hel-d,..........for grant of letters of administration with respect to properties of his deceased sister in the civil station, banglore. the applicant is a hindu governed by the hindu law as in force in mysore. his sister, it is said, at first married a hindu but after his death embraced mahomadanism and married a muslim of civil station and lived with him. h. m. yunus, her muslim husband died in 1939 and she in january 1947 leaving no children and intestate properties she was possessed of at the time of her death are according to the petition, of considerable value. the application was opposed by the brothers of the muslim husband of the deceased. the learned district judge held that neither the appellant by virtue of his relationship by birth nor others on account of relationship to the husband.....
Judgment:

Venkata Ramaiya, J.

1. This is an appeal under the Indian Succession Act against an order dismissing the application of the Appellant for grant of Letters of Administration with respect to properties of his deceased sister in the Civil Station, Banglore. The applicant is a Hindu governed by the Hindu Law as in force in Mysore. His sister, it is said, at first married a Hindu but after his death embraced Mahomadanism and married a Muslim of Civil Station and lived with him. H. M. Yunus, her Muslim husband died in 1939 and she in January 1947 leaving no children and intestate properties she was possessed of at the time of her death are according to the petition, of considerable value. The application was opposed by the brothers of the Muslim husband of the deceased. The learned District Judge held that neither the Appellant by virtue of his relationship by birth nor others on account of relationship to the husband could claim the letters. The order is not challenged by any one except the brother of the deceased.

2. It is not disputed that at the time of her death, the deceased was a Mohamadan and that there is nothing to avoid the application of the rules of Mahomadan Law except if at all that she was a convert from Hinduism. As page 79 of Mayne's Hindu Law, 10th edition, it is stated:

'The descendants of a Hindu convert to Mohamadanism cannot claim to inherit to his Hindu collaterals nor conversely can his Hindu collaterals succeed to the convert or his descendants'.

So long back as 1888 in 11 Mys L.R. 406 (A) in a case relating to the Civil Station it was observed:

'As he died a Mohamadan this must be decided with reference to the principles of Mahomadan Law, according to which the first plaintiff was his sole heir, the 2nd plaintiff being incapable of inheriting by reason of being a Hindu (Vide Ameer Alt's Personal Law of Mahomadens, page 276, Macnaughten's Mahomadan Law 5th edition, pages 466-484'.

In Mulla's Mohamadan Law, 11th edition, page 17 this is made clear thus:

'In the absence of a custom to the contrary succession to the estate of a convert to Mahomadanism is governed by the Mahomadan Law. According to the Mahomedan Law, a Hindu cannot succeed to the estate of a Mahomadan.'

The Caste Disabilities Removal Act XXI of 1850 can be of no assistance to Appellant as he is not the person who renounced his religion and no question of his rights on that ground arises for consideration. Dealing with a case of succession to the property of a Hindu who died as Muslim, convert in--'Mitar Ser Singh v. Maqbul Hasan', AIR 1930 P.O. 251 (B). Lord Atkin held that, the provision of the said Act cannot be availed of to support the claim of the Hindu relations, with an observation 'Mahomadan Law would in itself prevent a Hindu from succeeding as heir' and

'When once a person has changed his religion and changed his personal law, that law will govern the rights of succession of his children.'

The order of the lower court refers to another proceeding in Madras High Court where on the death of the same woman the court held that her properties escheated to the State or States in which these were situated. The order to this effect is reported in --- 'Mahomed Ismail v. Abdul Hameed', AIR 1949 Mad 141 (C).

Learned counsel for Appellant has in the memo of appeal sought to distinguish this case by alleging that Act XV of 1938 -- the Caste Disabilities Removal Act of Mysore applicable to properties in Civil Station was not taken into account for the purpose of that decision. This Act which came into force in Mysore on 13-7-38 was made applicable to the Civil Station only on 15-84948 by Act LVII of 1948. The lady with respect to whose properties the Letters of Administration are claimed died in January 1947, before the Mysore Act was made applicable. As the inheritance cannot be in abeyance and the operation of the Mysore Act is not shown to be retrospective it is unnecessary to examine its provisions to see how far these would support the claim. The appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

3. Appeal dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //