Skip to content


Sundarammal Vs. Ameenal - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1927Mad72
AppellantSundarammal
RespondentAmeenal
Cases Referred and Rupa v. Sardar Mirza
Excerpt:
- .....must turn on the construction which is given to act 21 of 1850, inasmuch as apart from the act, no hindu can inherit from a mahomedan. this act has received interpretation by a bench of this court in vaithilinga v. ayyathorai [1917] 40 mad. 1118 and the learned judges have held that it accords protection only to a person who has renounced, or has been excluded from the communion of his former religion, or has been deprived of his caste.2. the only other cases to which my attention has been drawn are bhagwant singh v. kallu [1888] 11 all. 100 and two others, viz., hassomal murijmal v. ghulam mahomed [1915] 8 s. l. r. 156 and rupa v. sardar mirza [1920] 1 lah. 376 which follow that ruling. the first of these cases has been expressly dissented from in the madras case referred to above, and.....
Judgment:

1. The question which arises in this case is whether a Hindu daughter can inherit from her father who once a Hindu, has been converted to Mahomedanism. It is admitted that the answer to this question must turn on the construction which is given to Act 21 of 1850, inasmuch as apart from the Act, no Hindu can inherit from a Mahomedan. This Act has received interpretation by a Bench of this Court in Vaithilinga v. Ayyathorai [1917] 40 Mad. 1118 and the learned Judges have held that it accords protection only to a person who has renounced, or has been excluded from the communion of his former religion, or has been deprived of his caste.

2. The only other cases to which my attention has been drawn are Bhagwant Singh v. Kallu [1888] 11 All. 100 and two others, viz., Hassomal Murijmal v. Ghulam Mahomed [1915] 8 S. L. R. 156 and Rupa v. Sardar Mirza [1920] 1 Lah. 376 which follow that ruling. The first of these cases has been expressly dissented from in the Madras case referred to above, and I need not, therefore, I think, discuss it further than to say that I am personally unable to reconcile the conclusion there come to with the clear terms of the Act. As I read the operative portion of that Act, it only relieves from forfeiture the person who has for some reason or other changed his religion and not any other person who may be affected by such a change. This is the view of the law which has been taken by the learned Subordinate Judge and I consider it to be correct and dismiss this Second Appeal with costs.


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