RAMAKRISHAN RAO ALIAS BABURAO Vs. SRINIVASARAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal involves the determination of the question whether the 2nd defendant, Venkatarao Datar, retired Deputy Secretary to the Government of Hyderabad in the Finance Department, had become a Sanyasi after due performance of the ceremonies necessary for this purpose on the 17th Sherewar. 1346F and whether notwithstanding the fact of his becoming a Sanyasi, which in law is deemed to be a civil death, he executed a will on 1st Meher, 1356F., by which he gave the suit house to the 3rd defendant, his grand-son Murlidhar, son of the plaintiff, Ramakrishen.

(2.) It may be stated, that 2nd defendant has two sons, the plaintiff and the 1st defendant. The Plaintiff alleged that his father, the 2nd defendant after ceasing to have any interest in the affairs of the world,. divided the properties between the members of the family on the 17th Sherewar, 1346F, and executed a memorandum of partition on the same day. In pursuance of this partition, the 2nd defendant put them in possession of the moveable and immovable properties, renounced the world and took the vows of a Sanyasi. After a few months, at the instance of the father-in-law of the 1st defendant, who is a lawyer, another list of the properties was executed on the 8th Aban 134GF. by himself and the 1st defendant in which the properties which are in the possession of the plaintiff and the 1st defendant as also the fact of the prior partition were mentioned. The plaintiff further averred that the suit house No. 3113-B situate in Gowliguda had been allotted to his share and had since the partition been in possession of the same; that since the two houses which were allotted to the share of the 1st defendant were already rented out and the 1st defendant had no place to live in, he expressed a desire to live in that house temporarily and consequently the plaintiff permitted him to reside in one portion of the house; that the 2nd defendant was also living in one of the rooms as a Sanyasi with the permission of the plaintiff; that the 1st defendant on the 17th Sherewar, 1356F, malafide refused to vacate the house and apprehending a suit against him by the plaintiff for ejectment the defendants conspired and brought into existence a document on the 1st Meher, 1356F, calling it a will, even though partition had taken place as long ago as 1346F. In these circumstances, it is stated that the 2nd defendant had no right to execute any such document, nor could he do so by reason of his becoming a Sanyasi, which fact also deprived him of rights in his property, and consequently the recital in the will that the suit house was given to his son, Murlidhar, the 3rd defendant has no validity or effect against the plaintiff. The plaintiff, therefore, prayed for cancellation of the will dated 1st Mehar, 1356F, which cast a cloud on his title to the house, for ejectment of the defendants therefrom and for possession thereof.(After setting out the contentions of the defendants, the issues and the evidence, which are not material for the purpose of this Report the judgment proceeded:)

(3.) The next question is that which deals with the 2nd defendant becoming a Sanyasi after duo performance of ceremonies on the 17th of Sherewar 1346F. The evidence relating to this aspect of the case consists of the depositions, apart from the plaintiff as P. W. 3, of Ramachandra Rao P. W. 1 and two Purohits. Satyanarayana Sastri, P. W. 2 and Subramanya Sastri P. W. 4 who are from Godavari District. The 2nd defendant asserts that he has merely changed his clothes in accordance with a vow taken by him on the Mathaji recovering from illness and has not ceased to take interest in his properties or the affairs of the world, as suggested by the plaintiff, nor did he have such an intention at any time. He further stated that he was the head of the family, that he used to keep accounts even after he had changed his dress, that he paid the expenses for the maintenance of the family, that he wrote a took "Nectar of Grace", which is a translation of the Rubayat by Omar Qayam and was obtaining royalties therefrom and that on the day when he was alleged to have become a Sanyasi he had a cash balance of Rs. 10,000 in the bank and had not divested himself of all properties. He further asserted that he has been living in the house with his family as before and that he did not give the house to his son, but lived in it as the owner thereof and that the suit of the plaintiff was a false one. In cross-examination of this witness, no suggestion was made that the ceremonies were performed by P. Ws. 2 and 4. Some general questions were asked about the ceremonies required for becoming a Sanyasi in reply to which he stated that the process of becoming a Sanyasi takes nearly 44 days involving Sudhi, the performance of eight shraddhas, Vraja Homan and the holy both in the river Ganga etc. all of which he did not perform. In his will Ex. 2 also he says much the same thing about his becoming a devotee of one Mathaji, his taking a vow he would change his clothes and serve her if she recovered from her illness, his-keeping that vow after she recovered, his dividing, some of his properties and thereafter his having served the Matliaji. He no doubt says in that will that this manner of taking Sanyasa is said to be Kutichak. The question is whether the 2nd defendant took the vow of a Sanyasi after due performance of ceremonies.