Court: Madras High Court
Citation: (1928) 55 MLJ 478
Case Type: Testamentary Original Suit
Case No: 1 of 1928
Appellants: Ratansi D. Morarji
Respondents: The Administrator-General of Madras
Decided On: 20-08-1928
Statues Referred:
- Indian Succession Act.
Case Referred:
- Dagree v. Pacotti Sanjao
- Jowala Buksh v. Dharum Singh
- Abraham v. Abraham
- Bai Gulab v. Jiwanlal Harilal
- Muthuswami v. Masilamani
Justice: Venkatasubba Rao, J.
Facts:
Mena Renda was an Austrian origin women who domiciled in Great Britain. She proclaimed herself as a Hindu upon the grounds that she was a vegetarian and was practically Hindu orientated in all her habits. She lived in India for around 12 or 13 years and so upon such consideration, desired to convert to Hinduism.
On 21st of May, 1922, at the request of Mena, the Hindu Missionary society situated in Bombay performed ‘Sudhi’ to convert her into Hindu faith.
On the same day she married to Ratansi Morarji who was a mill-owner and member of State Council, Bombay. Mr. Vaidya and Mr. Raje officiated both the conversion and the marriage. Mr. Bhat performed the rite of Kanyadan.
Both the conversion and the marriage were published in newspaper. After marriage the husband went back to Bombay while the wife either resided at the headquarter, in Adyar of the theosophical Society or was roaming in South India. In October 1922, she made a will were she bequeathed her property to Mr. Morarji. And on 14th August 1923, she died in Bombay.
The will was not attested and therefore the objection that stood was whether the will was valid and was the wife a Hindu when executed the will.
Issue:
Whether a lady of European origin eligible to convert to Hinduism?
Whether after conversion her marriage with a Hindu gentleman, Bhatia by caste, valid?
Obiter Dicta:
In consonance with the view of Sir Charles Eliot the Court held that with the passage of time Hinduism has grown gradually. The hallmark of Hinduism lies in the fact that it absorbs all kinds of belief and assimilate deities.
The ideas of Hinduism is inspired by the amalgamation of the ideological contribution by Persian and Greek. Acceptation of non-Hindus into the Hindu tribe was never an alien process.
Ratio Decedendi:
Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act provides that a valid will in order to be valid needs attestation of atleast two witness. But the provision is applicable upon the will executed by Hindus only that too within the original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court of Madras and Bombay.
The facts shows that the when the will was made the lady did not reside in the territory of Bombay. She was residing at the quarters of the Theosophical Society at Adyar which is neither within the limits of Madras. There was no positive evidence that could affirm where the will was executed.
It was claimed that she was in mofussil and if that contention was true then the will was valid.
Therefore the question whether she was Hindu became nugatory. But even then the Court laid dawn the ratio that the word Hindu in the impugned Act was used in Theological term. And observed that native Christian were not Hindus within the meaning of the Act.
The Court laid dawn the test to determine whether a given person is a Hindu or not, namely:
- One must reside in India.
- Abdicate its religion by a clear act of renunciation.
- Adopt Hinduism by following formal conversion.
- Give up its Christian name and adopt a Hindu name.
- In case of marriage, must marry a person who is Hindu by race and religion.
Mena Renda however satisfied all the requirements here above and hence the Court held her to be a valid Hindu within the meaning of the Indian Succession Act.
Since she was Hindu therefore the will executed by her was valid and the petitioner was entitled to the letter of administration with a copy of that will annexed.
The Court held that Mena Renda died intestate. In order that her husband be entitled to get those property, the marriage needs to be valid.
The basic principle of conversion is that if a Hindu converts to Muhamadanism then by virtue of its conversion the person shall be governed by Muslim Law. Also the laws codified in India permits the application of Hindu law among the Hindus and Muslim Law among the Muhammadans.
Therefore if a European converts to Hinduism then the Hindu Law thereafter shall be applicable.
Referring to Bai Kashi v. Jamnadas and Bai Gulab v. Jiwanlal Harilal case the Court held that the anuloma marriage are valid while pratiloma marriage are invalid.
Judgment
The Madras High Court’s Justice Venkatasubba Rao, held the following:
If a person acquires a new domicile then such person also carry with itself the new law of that domicile. So Mena Renda being a European after conversion was to abide by Hindu Law.
Mena Renda fulfilled the test as laid down by the Court with regard to conversion to Hindu faith and hence held that her conversion to Hinduism was after due observance of Hindu rites and was valid one.
The marriage between Mena Renda and Mr. Morarji was a valid one. The Court also stated that was not a scintilla of doubt with regard to genuineness of will.
The Court directed to grant petitioner of letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed.
Conclusion
The petitioner was granted the letter of administration upon two grounds that Austrian lady adopted Hinduism after due observance of Hindu rites and thereafter was governed by Hindu law.
Secondly the will was held to be valid even though it was not attested, due to fact that she had validly converted herself into Hinduism and Hindu law demands that a will to be valid must be executed by a Hindu.
Kaushal Agarwal