KRISHNAJI SHIVAJI PAWAR Vs. HANMARADDI MALLARADDI MAIDUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff in this suit, a minor suing by the Deputy Nazir as guardian, sued on a promissory note made in the year 1919 by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff's father, the suit being in the Court of the First Class Joint Subordinate Judge, Dharwar. The learned Subordinate Judge raised an issue as to whether the plaintiff was competent to file the suit, and he answered that issue in the affirmative. The defendant appealed, and on appeal, this Court took the view that inasmuch as the promissory note on which the plaintiff sued was given to the father, the plaintiff could not sue upon it in his own right and could only sue upon it as manager of the joint family, or as heir of his father, if it were proved that the father had renounced the world. Accordingly, an issue was sent down to the lower Court to determine, whether the plaintiff's father had renounced the world. With all respect, the issue should have been directed to the date on which this suit was commenced and the issue should have been whether the father had renounced the world at the date of the commencement of the suit. The issue was considered by the lower Court, which answered it in the negative.

(2.) The facts are to be ascertained mainly from the evidence of the plaintiff's mother, that is to say, the wife of the father, and it appears from her evidence that the father killed a son of his and he was prosecuted for the murder. He was found to be insane and was confined in a lunatic asylum. He Was subsequently released from the lunatic asylum, though the date of such release is not specified, and then for some time he lived in a math, and he transferred all his immoveable property into the name of the plaintiff, his son, The learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the father did at some time give up all connection with worldly affairs and all right to property to which he was entitled, but that subsequently the father resiled from that attitude because he returned to live with his family and had two children by his wife. On that evidence the learned Judge held that it was impossible to say that the father had completely and finally renounced the world.

(3.) It is clear that renunciation in order to amount to civil death must be a complete and final withdrawal from earthly affairs. Mr. Nilkant Atmaram for the respondent relies on the finding of the Subordinate Judge that the father originally gave up connection with the world. He says that that must have been the position when this suit was started in 1924. But the learned Subordinate Judge was right in having regard to the evidence of subsequent events. At the highest, it may be said that if the issue had been decided in the year 1924 on the evidence then available, the Court might have come to the conclusion that the father had completely and finally renounced the world. But, in view of subsequent events it is quite clear that any such finding would have been wrong, and taking all the facts as ascertained in 1933, it seems to me that the learned Subordinate Judge's finding was right that the father never did completely and finally renounce the world.