Karnataka High CourtKarnataka High CourtK.P. Chandrasekharappa vs Government Of Mysore on 18 December, 1952Equivalent citations: AIR 1955 Kant 26, AIR 1955 Mys 26, ILR 1953 KAR 563Author: V RamaiyaBench: V Ramaiya, BalakrishnaiyaJUDGMENT

Venkata Ramaiya, J.

1. This is an appeal under the Indian Succession Act against an order dismissing the application of theAppellant for grant of Letters of Administration with respect to properties of his deceased sister in the CivilStation, Banglore. The applicant is a Hindu governed by the Hindu Law as in force in Mysore. His sister, it issaid, at first married a Hindu but after his death embraced Mahomadanism and married a Muslim of CivilStation and lived with him. H. M. Yunus, her Muslim husband died in 1939 and she in January 1947 leavingno 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 onaccount of relationship to the husband could claim the letters. The order is not challenged by any one exceptthe 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 toavoid 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 norconversely 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 reasonof being a Hindu (Vide Ameer Alt's Personal Law of Mahomadens, page 276, Macnaughten's MahomadanLaw 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 isgoverned by the Mahomadan Law. According to the Mahomedan Law, a Hindu cannot succeed to the estateof a Mahomadan."

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

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

K.P. Chandrasekharappa vs Government Of Mysore on 18 December, 1952

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/248987/ 1

The order of the lower court refers to another proceeding in Madras High Court where on the death of thesame 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 ActXV of 1938 -- the Caste Disabilities Removal Act of Mysore applicable to properties in Civil Station was nottaken into account for the purpose of that decision. This Act which came into force in Mysore on 13-7-38 wasmade applicable to the Civil Station only on 15-84948 by Act LVII of 1948. The lady with respect to whoseproperties the Letters of Administration are claimed died in January 1947, before the Mysore Act was madeapplicable. As the inheritance cannot be in abeyance and the operation of the Mysore Act is not shown to beretrospective it is unnecessary to examine its provisions to see how far these would support the claim. Theappeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.

3. Appeal dismissed.

K.P. Chandrasekharappa vs Government Of Mysore on 18 December, 1952

Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/248987/ 2