Madras High Court· 28 July 2026

Does Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 disqualify a convert from claiming a share in the property of her Hindu relatives?

Elavarasi v. Kunjithabatham

2026:MHC:3181 · CMA No. 2164 of 2014
Coram: Justice N. Anand Venkatesh

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow s.26 Hindu Succession Act, 1956 📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. Section 26 applies where a Hindu has ceased or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion, but on a plain reading it is only the descendants of the convert, born to the convert after such conversion, who are disqualified from inheriting the property of any of their Hindu relatives, unless such descendants are Hindus at the time when the succession opens. The convert herself is not disqualified, so even assuming conversion, Section 26 does not bar her claim for a share in the suit properties.

Headnote

Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s.26 — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 27 — Disqualification on conversion — Additional evidence — Remand — Hindu Succession Act, 1956 — s.26 — Convert not disqualified from inheriting — Held: A plain reading of Section 26 makes it clear that it is only the descendants of the convert who are disqualified from inheriting the property of any of their Hindu relatives; the disqualification does not apply to the convert. (¶13, 16) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 27 — Additional evidence — No useful purpose — Held further: Where the contentions the additional evidence is meant to establish have become academic, no useful purpose will be served in recording that evidence, and the order allowing the applications and remanding the suit is liable to be set aside. (¶11, 17) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 41 Rule 27 — Disposal of appeal on merits — Held further: The lower appellate court must dispose of the appeal and the cross appeal on merits within the time frame fixed, all contentions on merits remaining open to both sides. Appeal and civil revision petitions allowed. (¶17, 18)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 13The only other issue that has to be taken into consideration is the so called bar under Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The said provision will apply where the Hindu has ceased or ceases to be a Hindu by conversion to another religion before or after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act and it will act as a disqualification of inheriting the property of any of the Hindu relatives, unless such children or descendants are Hindus at the time when the succession opens.

Paragraph 15In reply to the above submission, the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant/petitioner submitted that Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act, does not disqualify the convert and it only disqualifies the descendants of the converts who are born to the convert after such conversion, from inhering property of any of their Hindu relatives. The learned Senior Counsel in order to substantiate his submission relied upon the judgment of the Calcutta High Court 9 in Asoke Naidu .vs. Raymond S.Mul reported in AIR 1976 Calcutta 272 and the judgment of the Chhattisgarh High Court in Suresh Darvade .vs. Arrjun Ram Pandey reported in AIR 2010 Chhattisgarh 40.

Paragraph 16This Court finds a lot of force in the above submission made by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant/petitioner. A plain reading of Section 26 of the Act, makes it clear that it is only the descendants of the convert who are disqualified from inheriting and this disqualification will not apply to the convert. Therefore, even assuming that the plaintiff has converted to Christianity, Section 26 of the Act does not disqualify the plaintiff to claim for the share in the suit properties. In view of the same, no useful purpose will be served in recording the evidence in this regard by the Trial Court.

Acts & Sections

s.26 Hindu Succession Act, 1956Order 41 Rule 27 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of Elavarasi v. Kunjithabatham — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Can an appellate court receive additional evidence under Order 41 Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where the contentions it is meant to establish have become academic?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections