1850 law denies property share to Christian woman

S Shyam Prasad | NT

Bengaluru: A trial court in the city has cited the Caste Disabilities Removal Act of 1850 to rule against a woman who claimed a share in a ‘family property.’ Hindus converted to Christianity do not have the concept of joint family, the HC said.

“As the parties are not governed by Hindu Law, the concept of joint family or joint family property cannot be applied in this suit,” the HC said, dismissing a suit filed by a 64-year-old Philomina A. Philomina A, from Mariyappanapalya, Bengaluru, had filed the suit against 14 of her family members along with one Lakshmi Boraiah who had purchased the property and the Bangalore Development Authority (BDA) which had acquired the land subsequently.

Philomina claimed a one-ninth share in the property that originally belonged to her father Anthappa. The family members had sold the 1 acre 20 guntas of land to Lakshmi Boraiahin 1999. The BDA had acquired the land from Boraiah.

The plea by Philomina said she was entitled to oneninth of the compensation to be paid by BDA. Boraiah claimed before the XI Additional City Civil & Sessions Judge that since Philomina and her family members “are Indian Christians, the concept of coparcenary property or joint family is alien to Christians.”

The family members who had sold her the property were absolute owners and the original property extended to 2 acres 32 guntas which had been partitioned between the members of Philomina’s family. The court in its judgment cited the citation argued by the advocate of Boraiah.

The Patna High Court in the case Prayag Gope Vs Etnal Smart applied the Caste Disabilities Removal Act and said, “The property inherited by a Christian convert daughter as a daughter estate, which is a life estate, from her deceased Hindu father by virtue of Caste Disabilities Removal Act 1850, on her death prior to Hindu Succession Act 1956, will pass to the reversioners of her father and not to her own Christian progeny under the Indian Succession Act.”

The court also noted the suit schedule property was sold in favour of Boraiah way back in 1999 and the same was accepted by the plaintiff and other members of her family. The sale was accepted by her and other members of her family. “When she is not entitled to share therein, she cannot claim any compensation,” the Court said.