Muthusami Mudaliar And Anr. vs Masilamani And Ors. on 1 December, 1909
2. The evidence is conflicting, as to the religion of Vedanayaga at the time of the marriage with defendant 5 and at the time of his death. The materials are very scanty and it is not perhaps too strong an observation to make if I say that in view of what would appear from the evidence in the case as to the prevalence of unions amongst members of this community without much regard to their religious beliefs and opinions, and in view of the facts referred to in the judgment of this Court in Muthuswami Mudaliar v. Masilamani (1910) 33 Mad. 312, their re-conversion to Hinduism is probably quite as simple a matter as their original conversion from Hinduism. The learned Judge also points out that the evidence shows that many of the acts of the members of this group are dubious partaking to some extent of Christian habits and to some extent of Hindu habits. In these circumstances the learned Subordinate Judge has drawn the inference that Vedanayaga must have become a Hindu at the time of his marriage with defendant 5 because it would appear in the evidence that the marriage was celebrated in the Hindu form though the rituals seem to have been quite simple. There is no doubt that the community treated Vedanayaga and defendant 5 as husband and wife and their issue as legitimate. It is stated by some of the plaintiff's witnesses that several acts of Vedanayaga subsequent to the marriage with defendant 5 would show that he oontinued a Christian. But the learned Subordinate Judge has refused to attach importance to this statement. There is a statement in the death register (Ex. D) describing him as a Christian. But it was certainly not his statement and we are not in a position to say who made that statement. I very much doubt if that statement is admissible at all. It is at best safe to rely upon these registers only with reference to the fact of death and the date of death. In a case where there is so much of conflicting evidence as to the religion of this man, a statement made by some unknown person that he was a Christian can carry very little weight. Under these circumstances I see no reason to differ from the view of the learned Subordinate Judge that Vedanayaga and defendant 5 must be regarded as having become Hindus at the time they were married.