MSGR. XAVIER CHULLICKAL Vs. RAPHAEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) "A nun, at best, is only half a woman, just as a priest is only half a man."

(2.) Raphael and his wife Mary Raphael had three children by name George, Xavier and Eleeswa and it is not in dispute that George pre-deceased his parents while Xavier entered the religious Order as a priest. The parents had executed Ext.B1 joint Will bequeathing the plaint schedule property to Xavier (the first defendant) followed by Ext.B2 Codicil by Mary Raphael alone. Ext.B2 Codicil does not relate to the plaint schedule property and only the validity of Ext.B1 Will and the legality of the bequest made thereunder fell for consideration in the suit. Three children of George (the plaintiffs) contended that no rights flowed under Ext.B1 Will to the first defendant since he had even earlier become a priest after taking a vow of poverty. The plaintiffs asserted that the first defendant was at best a manager only who had suffered a civil death on becoming a priest and that the plaint schedule property is to be divided eschewing his share.

(3.) The first defendant as well as defendants 2 to 4 (who are the other children of George) contended that Ext.B1 Will is valid and that the bequest in relation to the plaint schedule property is legal. The fact that the first defendant had become a priest in the year 1943 much before Ext.B1 Will came into effect was conceded even though the taking of a vow of poverty by him was disputed. The first defendant had on the strength of Ext.B1 Will executed two sale deeds in respect of a portion of the plaint schedule property in favour of the second defendant. It was the case of the defendants that the sale deeds (Document Nos.1020/1995 and 737/1995) are legal and valid and the balance extent of the plaint schedule property is not liable to be divided.