Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act does not disqualify converts from inheritance.

The plaintiff instituted O.S. No.218 of 2004 seeking partition and allotment of a one-half share in the suit properties.

The Trial Court, by judgment and decree dated 28 February 2008, held that the plaintiff was entitled to a one-third share and passed a preliminary decree.

Defendants 1, 3 and 4 filed A.S. No.45 of 2012, while the plaintiff filed a cross-appeal claiming enhancement of her share to one-half.

During the appeal, the defendants filed four applications under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to introduce additional evidence concerning the alleged date of the plaintiff’s marriage and her alleged conversion to Christianity.

The First Appellate Court allowed the applications and remanded the matter to the Trial Court for receiving the additional documents, recording evidence, and returning the matter for disposal of the appeal on merits.

The plaintiff challenged that order through the present civil miscellaneous appeal and revision petitions.

1. Whether the First Appellate Court was justified in allowing the applications for additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and remanding the matter for recording evidence regarding the plaintiff’s date of marriage and alleged conversion?

2. Whether the plaintiff’s alleged conversion to Christianity disqualified her from inheriting a share in the suit properties under Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?

3. Whether the question of the plaintiff’s entitlement to a share required reconsideration in light of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 and Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma?

The Court applied the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, which conferred equal coparcenary rights on daughters, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1.

It further applied Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, which disqualifies the descendants of a convert from inheriting the property of a Hindu relative unless such descendants are Hindus when succession opens; the provision does not disqualify the convert herself.

The Court also considered the principles governing reception of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC, holding that such evidence was unnecessary where it could not affect the legal determination of the plaintiff’s entitlement.

The Court held that the controversy regarding whether the plaintiff married before or after the Tamil Nadu amendment came into force had become academic in view of the Central Amendment Act, 2005 and the law declared in Vineeta Sharma.

Consequently, recording further evidence on the date of marriage was unnecessary.

Regarding conversion, the Court construed Section 26 as operating only against the descendants of a convert, and not against the convert herself.

Therefore, even assuming that the plaintiff had converted to Christianity after marriage, she would not thereby be disqualified from claiming her share in the suit properties.

Since the additional evidence sought by the defendants could not materially affect these legal conclusions, the remand ordered by the First Appellate Court served no useful purpose.

It set aside the First Appellate Court’s judgment and decree dated 22 April 2014 in A.S. No.45 of 2012 and the cross-appeal, as well as the orders allowing I.A. Nos.23 of 2012, 37 and 38 of 2013, and 1 of 2014.

The matter was remanded to the Principal District Judge, Ariyalur, for disposal of the appeal and cross-appeal on merits, after affording both parties an opportunity of hearing, within three months from receipt of the High Court’s judgment.

The Court clarified that all contentions on merits remained open before the Appellate Court.

No order as to costs was made.