(1.) Since questions which appeared intricate and of public importance arose in this Second Appeal, the appeal has been referred by a Division Bench to the Full Bench for an authoritative decision. The two questions formulated by the referring Bench are the following :-
(2.) The aforesaid two questions arise in the second appeal pending before this Court. The facts, so far as they are relevant for decision on the question formulated, are not in dispute, I may briefly notice the material facts. Tilak Mahto, a Hindu Governed by Mitakshara School had two daughters Parbatia and Rupia. Prabatia adopted Christianity as her religion in December 1891, and thereafter on 15th December, 1891 she married one Mr. A. R Hills. Tilak Mahto died b,efore survey in the years 133 B. C. (corresponding to years 1926-27). His two daughters inherited his properties Though some of the lands were recorded exclusively in the name of Parbatia, and some were recorded jointly in their favour, Parbatia, the Christian daughter, filed title suit No. 1 of 1927 and obtained a decree for partition of the estate left behind by her father. The suit was decreed, and both the daughters were declared to be entitled to equal shares in the properties left behind by their father. In that suit Parhatia claimed her share basing her claim on the provisions of the Caste Disabilities Removal Act 1850 (Act XXI of 1850) contending that her conversion of Christianity did not affect her right to inherit the proparty left behind by her father. Parbati died in the year 1955 before the Hindu Succession Act 1956 came into force.
(3.) After the death of parbatia a dispute arose between the children of Parbatia (Mrs. Hills) and Rupia the Hindu daughter. While the former contended that the property inherited by Parbatia (Mrs. Hills) would be governed by the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, so that after the death of Parbatia (Mrs. Hills) they were entitled to inherit the same, the latter contended that Parbatia (Mrs. Hills) had only a limited estate in the properties inherited from her Hindu Father, and therefore as a consequence, upon her death the properties must revert to the reversipners, and she being one af the heirs and reversioner was entitled to the said properties. The disputed Rupia, the Hindu daughter, to file title suit No 58 of 1963 for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit properties from the Christian heirs of Parbatia (Mrs. Hills). Rupia died during the pendency of the suit, and her adopted son Murli Cope was substituted as the plaintiff.