Whether On Adopting Ascetic Life, Right To Hold Property Exists Under Article 300A Of Constitution?: Kerala High Court Explains

The Kerala High Court has clarified that whether on adopting an ascetic life, a right to hold property exists under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.

The Court was hearing Appeals in which it was called upon to examine an issue because the Plaintiff claimed that he has not adopted the life of an ascetic whereas the Defendants contended that the Plaintiff consciously chose the life of an ascetic and thus is precluded from claiming the right over the family property.

A Single Bench of Justice Easwaran S. explained, “Therefore, to conclude, though the rights of a person adopting an ascetic life could still be governed by Article 300A of the Constitution of India in so far it related to a property acquired by him after becoming an ascetic and not to the ancestral property, if the deprivation of his property, whether ancestral or obtained after becoming a sanyasi, is done by a private individual, the Article can have no application at all. To hold otherwise would certainly erode the customary law, which prevails between the parties, which is not intended to be infringed in any manner by the provisions of our Constitution.”

The Bench said that even if a person chooses an ascetic life, his right guaranteed under our Constitution is not lost.

Advocate C. Muralikrishnan (Payyannur) appeared on behalf of the Appellant/Plaintiff, while Senior Advocates R. Lakshmi Narayan and N. Sukumaran appeared on behalf of the Respondents/Defendants.

Brief Facts

A suit for partition came up in the Second Appeals, questioning the manner in which the Sub Court rendered the Judgment in an Appeal filed by the Appellant-Plaintiff. The Trial Court had dismissed the suit for partition. In the First Appeal, the dismissal of the suit was reversed and the suit was decreed. The Plaintiff in his Second Appeal, contended that the quantum of shares allotted to him is not correct.

On the other hand, the Defendants questioned the mode of reversal of Trial Court’s Judgment. The question before the High Court was: “Has the concept of civil death of a person, who chooses an ascetic life (sanyasi), lost relevance on coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956?”

Reasoning

The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “This issue, though not raised before the courts below, is raised before this Court in the context of the right to hold property. Article 300A of the Constitution of India provides that no person shall be deprived of his right to hold property except in accordance with the law. The legal impact of a person becoming a Sanyasi relates to the devolution of his ancestral property after his civil death, and if the process is completed, a complete and orthodox renunciation of all worldly ties as per the customary law take place.”

The Court added that it will be difficult to envisage a situation, where on becoming an ascetic or a Sanyasi, his constitutional rights guaranteed under our Constitution will stand to lose, but then, the right to hold the property under Article 300A of the Constitution must be judged in the context of the nature of the right sought to be asserted by a person, who is stated to have chosen an ascetic life by becoming a Sanyasi.

“Right to profess a religion or a particular custom is guaranteed under Article 25 of the Constitution of India. … What is sought to be projected is, even if a person chooses an ascetic life, his right guaranteed under our Constitution is not lost. Though there may be force in the above argument, the question remains to be considered is whether such right is available against a private individual and that too on an ancestral property. A reading of Article 300A shows that, no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law”, it said.

The Court was of the view that the Plaintiff could only succeed if the Court were to hold that in the light of the evidence adduced by the parties, an express intention to relinquish the proprietary rights held by him under the deed of partition of the year 1954 has been made out.

“The discussion as above persuades this Court to hold that the trial court was justified in dismissing the suit. It is beyond doubt that the plaintiff showed certain degree of inclination to adopt the life of an ascetic, but later for obvious reasons, felt to leave out. No explanation is forthcoming, supported by cogent evidence to prove as to how and in what circumstances he had renounced his ascetic life. Therefore, it is a clear case where estoppel by conduct has been spelt out”, it noted.

The Court remarked that the argument that in order to constitute a proper relinquishment of right over the property, an express relinquishment in the form of a deed should also be there, does not impress the Court because of the close relationship between the family members.

“The conscious silence of the plaintiff for eight years after execution of the partition deed of the year 1994 leads to an irresistible conclusion that the case set up by the plaintiff cannot be believed”, it held.

The Court further observed that when the Plaintiff himself has admitted unambiguously that he has adopted the life of a Sanyasi, in view of the mandate under Section 58 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the First Appellate Court was not justified in overturning the decision of the Trial Court.

“The finding of the first appellate court in reversing the dismissal of the suit, despite the overwhelming evidence to prove that the plaintiff has adopted the life of a sanyasi, is nothing but perverse. … The conscious silence on the part of the plaintiff despite execution of Ext.A3 sale deed in favour of defendants 2 and 3 would lead to an irresistible conclusion that an estoppel by conduct has been clearly made out”, it also said.

Conclusion

Moreover, the Court noted that the silence on the part of the Plaintiff and also his own request to the brothers to partition the family property among themselves would give a clear indication that his acts constitute the principle of estoppel as provided under Section 115 of the Indian Evidence Act and that the silence on his part for eight years is a clear indication that he has accepted the family settlement between the parties.

“In the light of Exts.B4 to B8 letters, Ext.B9 gazette notification and also Ext.B11 certificate issued by the ashramam and also in the light of unimpeachable evidence of DW2, the first appellate court erred in reversing the judgment of the trial court holding that it is the burden of the defendants to prove that the plaintiff had adopted the life of a sanyasi”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Appeal and restored the Sub Court’s Judgment.

Cause Title- N. Subramanya Sarma v. E.N. Narayana Sarma & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:97690)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates C. Muralikrishnan (Payyannur), P.T. Girijan, Abraham George Jacob, Akshay R, and Adeena Shameed.

Respondents: Senior Advocates R. Lakshmi Narayan, N. Sukumaran, Advocates M.R. Sabu, J. Harikumar, N.K. Karnis, Kuruvilla John, S. Shyam, Pooja M. Nair, Saji Varghese Kakkattumattathil, and Kiran Peter Kuriakose.

Click here to read/download the Judgment