It has been observed that several protestant churches of North India, including the Methodist Church merged many years ago into an institution now called the United Church of North India (UCNI) and, therefore, the Methodist Church did not remain in existence and the Certificate of Baptism could only have been issued by the amalgamated Churches now known as the Church of North India (CNI). This certificate which has been produced, has not been issued by the amalgamated Church known as (CNI) and, therefore, it is bogus.
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
DIVISION BENCH
( Before : N.K. Jain, J; Jasraj Chopra, J )
PRITHVI SINGH — Appellant
Vs.
BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS — Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 221 of 1981
Decided on : 06-11-1990
Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 – Section 42
JUDGMENT
Jasraj Chopra, J.—This writ petition is directed against the judgment of the Division Bench of the Board of Revenue dated 26.11.80 whereby the appeal of the petitioner Prithvi Singh has been dismissed.
2. The facts necessary to be noticed for the disposal of this writ petition briefly stated are: that one Ramchander who was Chamar by caste, has, it is alleged, has embraced Christianity on 23.4.74 and thereafter he had sold his five bighas of land situated in village 25 F.U.P. Stone No. 142/257 Khasra Nos. 3,4,5,7 and 8 to the petitioner who is Jat Sikh on 30.12.74. It was held by the Course-below that it has not been proved that Ramchander has changed his religion to Christianity and, therefore, the sale effected is invalid u/s 42 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act. The learned Revenue Appellate Authority has observed that neither the person who has issued the Baptism Certificate has been examined nor Shri Ramchander who has sold this land, has been examined to show that he has adopted Christianity as his religion and has left Hindu religion. In the lower Courts, only a photo copy of the Baptism Certificate was filed. However, when the case came up before the learned Members of the Board of Revenue, the original Baptism Certificate was shown and that certificate was critically examined by the Board of Revenue and they came to the conclusion that this Certificate is invalid and cannot be accepted to hold that Ramchander has embraced Christianity and has left Hindu religion. It was observed by the learned Revenue Board that this Certificate of Baptism does not contain the serial number of the Baptism register which is essential ingredient for issuing such a certificate. It was further observed that a Minister of Methodist Churu, Fazilka has issued this certificate whereas such a Church does not exist. It has been observed that several protestant churches of North India, including the Methodist Church merged many years ago into an institution now called the United Church of North India (UCNI) and, therefore, the Methodist Church did not remain in existence and the Certificate of Baptism could only have been issued by the amalgamated Churches now known as the Church of North India (CNI). This certificate which has been produced, has not been issued by the amalgamated Church known as (CNI) and, therefore, it is bogus. It has also been observed that initially the Certificate was issued to one Chandu Masih and later, the name of Ramchander has been interpolated in it and on that account also, this certificate has not been held to be a valid certificate of Baptism and consequently the Board of Revenue did not act upon the Certificate and observed that on the basis of this, it cannot be held that Shri Ramchander has embraced Christianity. We see no illegality or impropriety in the observations of the learned Members of the Board of Revenue.
3. Our attention has been drawn to a Division Bench decision of this Court rendered in Brijlal and Anr. v. Board of Revenue Ajmer and Ors. bearing D.B. Civil Writ Pet. No. 1861/80 and five others decided by a common order by the Division Bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 9.3.1990. In this judgment also, two authorities of their lordships of the Supreme Court i.e. C.M. Arumugam Vs. S. Rajgopal and Others, and Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani Vs. Moreshwar Parashram and Others, Certin observations have been quoted and they clearly show that where a particular person who has embraced Christianity and has left his original religion i.e. Hindu, is a question of fact and no invariable rule can be set out. It would depend on the structure of the caste and its rules and regulations. It was further observed that three factors have to be considered in deciding such matters and they are (1) the reactions of the old body, (2) the intentions of the individual himself and (3) the rules of the new order. It has to be seen that the old caste is tolerant of the new order and has not ex-communicated the man. It has also to be seen whether he is still living with his family and his family has also adopted Christianity or whether the family and the caste still holds him as a Hindu and he is living as a member of that family and has not been ex-communicated. The burden of proving these facts initially lies on the petitioner himself who comes with a case that the seller has relinquished his original caste and embraced Christianity. In this case, that initial burden has not been discharged. The learned lower Courts were right in holding that the seller Ramchander has not relinquished his original religion and, therefore, the sale effected by him in favour of a caste Hindu i.e. Jat Sikh is hit by Section 42 of the Act and, therefore, it is void ab initio. For the reasons mentioned by the Revenue Board in its judgment, we agree-with these observations in toto.
4. Consequently, this writ petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed on merits.
(1990) 2 RajasthanLR 465 : (1990) 2 RLW 274 : (1991) RRD 557 : (1990) WLN 215 : (1990) WLN(UC) 215
Cases Referred
C.M. Arumugam Vs. S. Rajgopal and Others, AIR 1976 SC 939 : (1976) 1 SCC 863 : (1976) 3 SCR 82
Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani Vs. Moreshwar Parashram and Others, AIR 1954 SC 236 : (1954) 1 SCR 817
