RATANSI D MORARJI Vs. ADMINISTRATOR-GENERAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case raises questions of great importance: (1) Is it open to a lady of European origin to become a Hindu by conversion? (2) Is her marriage, after such conversion, with a Hindu gentleman, Bhatia by caste, valid?

(2.) The facts of the case are interesting. Mena Renda was of Austrian origin and domiciled in Great Britain. She was a Theosophist and a Hindu by conviction. She was further a vegetarian and has been described as having been practically a Hindu in all her habits of life. She was living in India for several years, about 12 or 13, and then expressed a desire to be formally converted to the Hindu faith. There was a Society founded in Bombay in 1917 known as the Hindu Missionary Society. Its object was to perform "Sudhi," that is to say, convert people of other faiths and admit them into the Hindu fold. On the 21 of May, 1922, at her request, this Society performed the ceremony of conversion. She changed her name and adopted a Hindu name, viz., Sulochana. Immediately after the conversion, on the same day, she married according to Vedic rites Mr. Ratansi Morarji, a mill-owner of Bombay and a Member of the Council of State. Mr. Vaidya and Mr. Raje, who belonged to the Hindu Missionary Society, officiated at the conversion as well as the marriage. They depose that in regard to both the events, Vedic religious rites were performed. Mr. Vaidya says - and his statement has not been challenged - that the rites performed were such as would be sufficient under the Hindu religion to effect a conversion. Mr. Vaidya and Mr. Raje are Brahmins as also Mr. Chunilal Bhat who was present and has been examined. It was Mr. Bhat who performed the Kanyadana, that is, who gave away the bride. The marriage was not performed secretly, but according to the evidence of Mr. Raje, it was not for certain reasons (not stated) made very public. The conversion as well as the marriage were published in the newspapers. Soon after the wedding, the lady and her husband left for Europe. They lived in Venice, in Paris and in London and returned to India in August. While they were in Europe, Mr. Morarji's brother was living with them as a member of their family. After their return, the husband went to Bombay, but the lady resided either at the Headquarters at Adyar of the Theosophical Society or was touring in South India. This state of things continued from August to December, 1922, when she also went over to Bombay, where she resided till her death on the 14 of August, 1923. In October, 1922, she made a will bequeathing her entire property to the petitioner, Mr. Morarji. The present proceeding relates to that will. Mr. Morarji claims letters of administration with a copy of that will annexed. The will has not been attested and one of the questions I have to decide is, is the will valid notwithstanding the fact that it has not been attested? This raises the question : Was she a Hindu at the time of the execution of the will? To proceed with my narrative, after she returned to Bombay, her husband lived at his own house, while she was living either on a flat or in Hotels. Mr. Morarji frequently visited her at those places and had his meals with her. In his evidence he deposes that she was regarded as a Hindu and treated by others as such. She died, as I have just said, on the 14 of August, 1923, and it is in evidence that she was cremated according to the Hindu rites in a Hindu crematorium at Bombay.

(3.) These are in brief the facts of the case. Under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, for a will to be valid, it must be attested by two or more witnesses. This Section applies in the case of Hindus only to wills made inter alia within the local limits of the Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Courts at Madras and Bombay. (See Secs.57 and 58.) In other words, if the testatrix was not a Hindu, the unattested will would in no case be valid; if she was a Hindu, it would be valid if it was made outside the Presidency Towns of Madras and Bombay.