The Kerala High Court (Ernakulam Bench) affirmed the Trial Court’s decision that the plaintiff, after renouncing worldly life and adopting Sanyasa, was estopped from claiming partition. The conscious silence of the plaintiff for eight years after execution of the partition deed of the year 1994 leads to an irresistible conclusion of an estoppel by conduct.
On civil death and the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the Court examined whether the concept of “civil death” for a person who becomes a Sanyasi has lost its relevance following the enactment of the Hindu Succession Act. It was argued that Section 4 of the Act, which gives it an overriding effect, abrogates the customary Hindu law principle that a person entering a religious order severs all connections with their natural family.
The Court pointed out that the Act is intended to codify the law of succession and does not prohibit the customary law governing Hindus unless it directly conflicts with the Act’s provisions. It held that the custom of renunciation upon becoming a Sanyasi is a personal decision and is not governed or touched by the provisions of the Hindu Succession Act. Therefore, the consequences of adopting an ascetic life, including civil death and the severance of property rights, remain untouched by the overriding provisions of the Act.
On the Right to Property under Article 300A of the Constitution, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Easwaran S. addressed the argument that the right to hold property is a constitutional right under Article 300A, which cannot be taken away simply because a person chooses an ascetic life. The Single Judge observed that Article 300A primarily protects individuals from the deprivation of property by the State under its sovereign power of eminent domain.
The Bench clarified that this article does not apply to the deprivation of property rights between private individuals, which must be remedied through civil proceedings. Furthermore, even if the right under Article 300A were applicable, it could be waived by the person through express or implied conduct.
On Estoppel by Conduct, the Bench found that the plaintiff was estopped by his own conduct from claiming a right over the property. The evidence, including letters written by the plaintiff, a gazette notification for his change of name, a certificate from the ashramam, and the testimony of an independent witness, overwhelmingly indicated that the plaintiff had renounced his worldly rights.
Asserting that the execution of a family arrangement, based on conduct spread over several years, constitutes an estoppel, the Bench noted that while certain ceremonies are required for the complete transformation, the plaintiff himself never denied his inclination towards an ascetic life.
Given the substantial evidence produced by the defendants showing the plaintiff’s renunciation, the onus shifted to the plaintiff to prove that the final ceremonies were not conducted or that he had validly renounced his ascetic life and returned to worldly affairs. The Bench thus found that the plaintiff failed to provide any cogent evidence explaining the circumstances under which he allegedly left the ascetic life.
Briefly, the dispute revolves around a suit for the partition of family property. The plaintiff and the 2nd defendant are brothers, born to Narayan Moosath and his second wife, the 4th defendant. The 1st defendant was born from Narayan Moosath’s first marriage. Through a partition deed in 1954, the plaint schedule properties were allocated to the ‘Saka’ (branch) of Narayan Moosath, the plaintiff, the 4th defendant, and the children to be born later.
The plaintiff’s sisters relinquished their rights over their shares after being married off using family funds. In 1994, defendants 1 and 2, along with the 4th defendant and the sisters, executed a partition deed without the plaintiff’s knowledge and without allotting him a share. The plaintiff filed the suit for partition, which was resisted by the defendants because the plaintiff had left his home at a young age to become an ascetic (Sanyasi) by adopting ‘Sanyasa’ and had thus renounced all worldly affairs and claims to the property.
The Trial Court dismissed the suit, concluding that the plaintiff had indeed renounced worldly life, adopted Sanyasa, and was therefore estopped from claiming partition. However, the First Appellate Court reversed this decision and passed a preliminary decree for partition.
Appearances:
Advocates P.T. Girijan, C. Muralikrishnan, Abraham George Jacob, Akshay R, and Adeena Shameed, for the Plaintiff
Senior Advocates R. Lakshmi Narayan and N. Sukumaran, along with Advocates M.R. Sabu, J. Harikumar, N.K. Karnis, Kuruvilla John, S. Shyam, Pooja M. Nair, Saji Varghese Kakkattumattathil, and Kiran Peter Kuriakose, for the Respondent
