PERUMAL NADAR (DEAD) BY L.RS. versus PONNUSWAMI

Citation: [1971] 1 S.C.R. 49 · Decided: 17-03-1970 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.C. SHAH · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
8 
• 
c 
E 
F 
G 
H 
PERUMAL NADAR (DEAD) BY L.RS. 
v. 
PONNVSWAMI 
March 17, 1970 
[J. C. SHAH, K. S. HEGDE AND A. N. GROVER, JJ.] 
49 
Hindu Law-Marriage between Hindu and former Christiarr-Proof 
of conversion to Hinduism-No formal purification ceremony necessary 
LBona fide intention accompanied by unequivocal conduct sufficient. 
Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act 6 of 1949-
Act applicable anly to those domiciled in Madras. 
Indian Evidence Act I of 1872, s. 112-Presumptio11 as to legitimacy 
of child. 
· 
One Perumal Nadar, a Hindu, married Annapazham, daughter of 
an Indian Christian, on November 29, 1950 at Kannimadam in the State 
of Travancore-Cochin according to Hindu ·rites. 
Of the two children 
born of the marriage one died. The younger child, a son born in 1958, 
a.cling through his mother, the aforesaid Annapazham, as his guardian, 
tilecl an action in the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Tirunelveli, for 
separate possession of a half share in the properties of the joint family 
held by his father Perumal. 
The auit was defended by Perumal. 
The 
trial court decreed the suit and the High Court confirmed the decree. 
In 'appeal to this Court by certificate Perumal, the appellant, contended : 
(i) that Annapa.ham was an Indian Christian and a marriage between 
a Hindu and an Indian Christian must be regarded as void; (ii)' that 
the marriage was invalid because the appellant was already marlried 
before he married Annapazham and bigamous marriages were prohibited 
by Madras Act 6 of 1949; (iii) that the appellant and Annapazham 
were living apart for a long time before the birth of the plaintiff and 
on that account the plaintiff could not be regarded as a legitimate child 
of the appellant. 
HELD: (i) The question whether marriage between a Hindu male 
and a Christian female iS"" valid or not did not arise folr consideration in 
the present case because the finding of the Courts below that Anna-
~azham was converted to Hinduism before her marriage with Perumal 
was amply supported by evidence. [52 D-E] 
· 
A person may be a Hindu by birth or conversion. A mere theoreti-
cal allegiance to the Hindu faith by a pers0n born in another faith does 
not convert· him into a Hindu, nor is a bare declaration that he is a 
Hindu sufficient to convert him to Hinduism. 
But a bona fide intention 
to be converted to the Hindu faith, accompanied by conduct unequivo-
cally expressing that intention may be sufficient evidene< of conversion. 
'No formal ceremony of purification or expiration is necessary to effectuate 
convorsion. [52 E-F] · 
Muthusami 
Mudallar v. 
Musifamani alias Subramania Mudaliar 
I.LR. 33 Mad. 342 and Goona Durgaprasada Rao v. Gaona Sudarasana-
swami, I.LR. (1940) Mad. 653, refe"Ted to. 
The evidence in the. present case established that 
th~ parents of 
Annapazham arranged the marriage. The marriage was performed 
50 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1971] I s.c.R. 
according to 1-lindu rites and ceremonies in the presence of relatives 
who were invited to attend : custon1ary ceremonies peculiar to a marriage 
between l-lindus were performed : no objection was raised to the marriage 
and after the marriage Annapazham was accepted by the local Hindu 
Nadar community as belonging to the Hindu faith; and the plaintiff v,:as 
alsv treated as a Hindu. 
On the evidence there could be r..o- doubt that 
Annapazham bone fide intended to contract marriage with Perumal . 
. Absence of sp.::cific expiatory or purificatory ceremonies would not be 
'iut11C'icnt to hold that she was not convc:rted to Hinduism before the 
n1arriage ccremonv \Vas performed. 
The fact that the appellant chose 
to go th:-ough the marri•tgc ceremony according to Hindu rites \.vith 
Annapazha1n in the pfcscncc of a large number of persons clearlv indi· 
cat~J that he accepted that Annapazham was converted to Hindusm 
b(:fure the mar'riage cererriony was perforn1ed. f53 C·EJ 
(ii) On the facts and pleadings the High Court was right in holding 
that it \.Vas not proved that the appellant was domiciled in the Statt! of 
~a<lras nt the <late of his 
marria~c with Annapazham. 
He could not 
therefore rely upon the provisiu1is of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy fri;: .. 
~·ention anc! Divorce) Act 6 of 19149. [54 F] · 
(iii) There \Vas a concurrent finding by the courts below that there 
\\'~ts no evidence lo establish thrit the appellant living in the same village 
a~ Annapazhail1 had no accc'\s to her during the tin1e when the plaintif

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.