Judgment :- 1. This is an appeal by the defendant by leave granted by Mr. Justice Kumara Pillai from his decision in S.A. No. 428 of 1950. The suit is for setting aside a mortgage deed and for recovery of possession of property with mesne profits. The plaintiff is a Hindu Nadar. He had a brother, Swaminathan, who became a Christian and died intestate in 1108. The plaint schedule property belonged to Swaminathan. After Swaminathan's death his wife Paranchothi, mortgaged the property to the defendant for 2100 fanams on 19.1.112 (Ext. I). Paranchothi died in 1115. Plaintiff brought this suit in 1116 for setting aside the mortgage and for recovering possession of the property with mesne profits. It was alleged that the plaintiff was the sole heir of Swaminathan, that Paranchothi was not Swaminathan's legally wedded wife, that she had no manner of right to the plaint property, that she was not competent to execute the mortgage and that the mortgage was not supported by consideration and necessity. 2. The defendant contended that Paranchothi was Swaminathan's legally wedded wife, that she was solely entitled to the property after Swaminathan's death, that she was therefore competent to execute the mortgage, Ext. I, that the mortgage was fully supported by consideration and necessity, that the plaintiff was only a half brother of Swaminathan their fathers being different, that the plaintiff was not entitled to succeed to the property of Swaminathan and that the suit was not maintainable. 3. The trial court found that Paranchothi was the legally wedded wife of Swaminathan that the plaintiff and Swaminathan were the sons of the same father and mother, that under the Travancore Christian Succession Act the plaintiff was Swaminathan's sole heir, that Paranchothi was entitled only to a life-estate over one-half of the property that the plaintiff was entitled to one half of the property absolutely and to other half subject to the life interest in favour of Paranchothi, and that after the death of Paranchothi the plaintiff became entitled to that half also absolutely. It was accordingly held that the mortgage, Ext. I, was invalid except to the extent of Paranchothi's life interest over one-half of the property and that since Paranchothi died on 30.11.1115 the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the whole property. The defendant appealed from this decree. It was accordingly held that the mortgage, Ext. I, was invalid except to the extent of Paranchothi's life interest over one-half of the property and that since Paranchothi died on 30.11.1115 the plaintiff was entitled to recover possession of the whole property. The defendant appealed from this decree. The District Court confirmed the findings of the trial court that the plaintiff was Swaminathan's brother and that Paranchothi was Swaminathan's legally wedded wife. But that court doubted whether the plaintiff who was a Hindu could succeed to the estate of his Christian brother under the Christian Succession Act and remanded the case to the trial court for fresh disposal after deciding this question and also the question whether the mortgage (Ext. I) was supported by consideration and necessity. 4. After the remand, the trial court dismissed the suit holding that the plaintiff, a Hindu, was not entitled to succeed to the estate of his Christian brother under the Christian Succession Act. It was also held that the mortgage, Ext. I was supported by consideration and necessity. The appeal filed by the plaintiff from this decision was also dismissed. The District Judge also was of opinion that the plaintiff could not succeed to the estate of Swaminathan under the Christian Succession Act. The second appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed by Mr. Justice Kumara Pillai. Our learned brother took the view that the fact that the plaintiff was a Hindu could not affect his right to succeed to the estate of his Christian brother under the Travancore Christian Succession Act. The plaintiff was accordingly given a decree for recovery of possession of property on deposit of the mortgage amount of 2100 fanams which was found to be a debt binding on the estate of Swaminathan. Plaintiff was also allowed to recover mesne profits at the rate of 3 Kottas of paddy per year from the date of deposit of the mortgage amount with notice to the defendant. The parties were directed to bear their costs in all the courts. Since the question of law raised in the case is an important one, our learned brother gave the defendant leave to appeal from his decision under S.21(i) of the High Court Act. 5. The parties were directed to bear their costs in all the courts. Since the question of law raised in the case is an important one, our learned brother gave the defendant leave to appeal from his decision under S.21(i) of the High Court Act. 5. The only question for decision in the appeal is whether the plaintiff, a Hindu Nadar, is entitled to succeed to the estate of his Christian brother who died intestate after the coming into force of the Travancore Christian Succession Act. 6. There is no provision in the Travancore Christian Succession Act to the effect that a person who is not a Christian is disqualified from succeeding to the estate of a Christian under the Act. Right of succession under the Act is based solely on kinship. S.25 of the Act reads: "When a person dies intestate, his next of kin in the order set forth below, shall be entitled to succeed to the residue, if any, of his property that may be left after deducting the widow's share if he has left a widow and also the mother's share if he has left a mother, under circumstances, which will according to S.21 to 23, entitle her to any share. The next of kin mentioned in the first group shall always be preferred to those standing second, the second to the third, and so on in succession. Group (1) Sons and daughters and the lineal descendants of such sons or daughters as well shall have pre-deceased the intestate. Group (2) Father. Group (3) Brothers and sisters (Whether of the full blood or by the same father only) and the lineal descendants of such of them as shall have pre-deceased the intestate. Group (4) Paternal grand father. Group (5) Paternal grand mother and paternal grand father's children including such of the latter as shall have pre-deceased the intestate leaving lineal descendants. Group (6) Brothers and sisters of the half blood on the mother's side and the lineal descendants of such of them as shall have died in the intestate's life-time. Group (7) Maternal grand father. Group (8) Maternal grand mother and the maternal grand father's children including the lineal descendants of such of them as shall have died in the intestate's life-time." It is admitted that Swaminathan had no children. His father pre-deceased him. Group (7) Maternal grand father. Group (8) Maternal grand mother and the maternal grand father's children including the lineal descendants of such of them as shall have died in the intestate's life-time." It is admitted that Swaminathan had no children. His father pre-deceased him. Therefore, his brother, who comes under group (3) is the person who is entitled to succeed to the estate subject to the life interest which the widow gets under S.17 of the Act read with S.24. The question is whether the plaintiff is disqualified from succeeding to the estate by reason of the fact that he is not a Christian. 7. According to learned counsel for the appellant, the Travancore Christian Succession Act applies only to cases in which not only the person who dies intestate but also the person who claims as an heir are both Christians. Reliance was placed on the wording of the preamble and S.2 of the Act. The preamble reads: "Whereas it is expedient to consolidate and amend the rules of law applicable to intestate succession among Indian Christians in Travancore." "We are pleased to enact as follows." S. 2 reads: "Except as provided in this Regulation, or by any other law for the time being in force, the rules herein contained shall constitute the law of Travancore applicable to all cases of intestate succession among the members of the Indian Christian community." Emphasis was laid on the words "among Indian Christians" in the preamble and "among the members of the Indian Christian community" in S.2. According to learned counsel, the word 'among' indicates that for the applicability of the Act not only the person who dies intestate but also the person who claims to succeed to his estate should both be members of the Indian Christian community. 8. We are unable to accept this contention. We are of opinion that the Act will apply to all cases of intestate succession to the property of an Indian Christian irrespective of the question whether the person who claims to succeed to the estate is a Christian or not. The object of the Act is to prescribe the mode of succession to the property of an Indian Christian who dies intestate. The object of the Act is to prescribe the mode of succession to the property of an Indian Christian who dies intestate. S.7 of the Act provide: "Succession to the immovable property situated in Travancore and belonging to a member of the Indian Christian community is regulated by this regulation, wherever he may have had his domicile at the time of his death. Succession to the movable property of a person deceased is regulated by the law of the country in which he had his domicile at the time of his death." S. 3 of the Act reads as follows: "The provisions of this Regulation shall not apply to intestate succession to the property of such members of the Indian Christian community as follow the marumakkavazhi system of inheritance; nor shall they apply to any intestacy occurring before the date on which this Regulation comes into force." 9. Reference may be made in this connection to the following observation of Krishnaswamy Iyer, C.J., in Ananchaperumal Nadar v. Muthayya Nadar (1944 TLR 595 FB). "There could hardly be any doubt whether the rules of succession governing a deceased person must be determined by his personal law or by a statute where there is one governing the matter. The Hindu Law of Inheritance will certainly apply to a deceased Hindu in the matter of determining his heirs; even so the Mohammadan Law to a deceased Mohemmadan and the Christian Succession Act to a deceased Christian. The question whether a particular person is an heir or not must be decided by the law of succession applicable to the deceased person to whom succession is traced. Whether a person is excluded from heirship must also be determined ordinarily by the same law and not by the personal law of the heir or the taker of the estate." In that case the majority of the Judges, Krishnaswamy Iyer, C.J. and Krishna Pillai, J., held that after the passing of the Travancore Christian Succession Act a Christian Nadar could not claim to inherit the property of a Hindu Nadar as his heir under the Hindu law. The Travancore High Court had held in earlier cases that the rule under the Hindu Law that an apostate is disqualified from inheriting the property of a Hindu did not apply to Nadars who were governed by a special custom by which conversion to Christianity did not entail forefeiture of rights to property or succession. (Vide Masanamuthu Sivanadumma Nadar v. Gopalakrishna Pillai Ramaswami Pillai (22 TLR 246) and Muthiah Nadar v. Bhagavathi Pillai Nadach (22 TLJ 60). In 1944 TLR 595 Krishnaswami Iyer, C.J. and Krishna Pillai, J., held that the effect of the passing of the Christian Succession Act was to abrogate this custom in its entirety as regards Christian converts. Abraham, J., dissented from this view. According to the learned judge, the passing of the Christian Succession Act which is concerned only with succession to the property of a Christian who dies intestate did not in any manner affect the usage governing the Nadar community by which a convert to Christianity could inherit the property of a Hindu. We are not called upon in this case to canvas the correctness of the view taken by the majority of the Judges. We may perhaps take a different view on the question if we are called upon to decide it. So far as this case is concerned the only question for decision is whether under the Christian Succession Act a Hindu is disqualified from inheriting the property of a Christian who dies intestate. On this question Abraham, J., also does not appear to have taken a different view although he did not express a definite opinion on the point. This is what the learned judge said: "Assuming that the Christian Succession Act prevented succession by a Hindu to a Christian Nadar's estate, which is itself doubtful, but need not now be examined, can it be said that the Christian Succession Act changed the personal law of the Hindu Nadar? In fact the question of reciprocity in the circumstances is a non judicial standard to be applied in the administration of existing law governing the parties and no consideration of supposed equity on that score can enter into the decision of the present rights. In fact the question of reciprocity in the circumstances is a non judicial standard to be applied in the administration of existing law governing the parties and no consideration of supposed equity on that score can enter into the decision of the present rights. By S.2 of the Act, all cases of intestate succession (generally) among the members of the Indian Christian community were to be governed by the provisions of that Act." The fact that the Hindu Law disqualifies a Christian to inherit the property of a Hindu is no reason why a Hindu should not inherit the property of a Christian under the Christian Succession Act if that Act does not disqualify a Hindu from so inheriting. The question is really one of interpreting the Christian Succession Act and considering whether it applies to all cases of intestate succession to the property of an Indian Christian irrespective of the question whether the person who claims to succeed to the estate is a Christian or not. In deciding that question one ought not to be influenced by consideration of mutuality or reciprocity of the law. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Travancore High Court in Ayyan Isakku v. Ayyan Chathan (16 TLR 16). Vencobachariar C.J., and Hunt, J., held in that case, following the decision in Seelianalidia v. Govindan Ayyappan (4 TLR 12) which was itself based on the well known case of Abraham v. Abraham (9 MIA 199) that when a member of a Marumakkathayam family becomes a convert to Christianity he loses his right to property in his original tarwad and that as a corollary to that a Hindu cannot claim to inherit the property of a Christian convert. The learned judges observed: "It follows, as a corollary from the above decision (4 TLR 12) that if a convert has no claim to the family property his unconverted relations would not similarly be entitled to inherit the convert's property." This decision was before the Travancore Christian Succession Act was passed. So long as we have a statutory law governing intestate succession to the property of a Christian we have only to interpret that law and see whether under that law a Hindu is disqualified from inheriting the property of a Christian who dies intestate; and there is no scope for applying principles relating to reciprocity of the law. 11. So long as we have a statutory law governing intestate succession to the property of a Christian we have only to interpret that law and see whether under that law a Hindu is disqualified from inheriting the property of a Christian who dies intestate; and there is no scope for applying principles relating to reciprocity of the law. 11. The Madras High Court considered this question in an old case Administrator General of Madras v. Anandachari (9 Mad. 467). That was a case in which a Hindu widow claimed the estate of her husband who became a Christian and married a Christian lady. Parker, J., held that the Indian Succession Act applied to the case and that there was nothing in that Act which disqualified a Hindu from succeeding to the estate of a Christian. The learned judge observed as follows: "I do not think that there is anything in the argument that Hindus are incapable of inheriting the property of a Christian under the Indian Succession Act. It does not follow that, because Krishnamma may have been incapable of inheriting to his father under Hindu Law, his father is incapable of inheriting to him under the Succession Act, for in the one case inheritance follows in the line of the funeral oblation while in the other it is governed by blood relation. S.331 of the Succession Act exempts the property of Hindus from the operation of Act, but there is no prohibition to a Hindu succeeding under the Act to the property of a Christian." We entirely agree with this view, if we may say so with respect. 12. In the result, we hold that the plaintiff is entitled to inherit the property of Swaminathan under the Travancore Christian Succession Act. We accordingly confirm the judgment and decree in S.A. No. 428 of 1950 and dismiss the appeal with costs.