Judgment:
G. Bhavani Prasad, J.
1. Both the appeals arise against the orders passed in I.A. Nos. 400 and 401 of 2004 in O.S. No. 10 of 2004 on 19.4.2005 on the file of I Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad to the extent of the observation in Para 22 of the said common order said to be a finding adverse to the interest of the appellant.
2. The factual background is that in the suit for partition, petitions were filed in I.A. Nos. 400 and 401 of 2004 for grant of interim injunction against the respondents restraining them from dealing with the suit property and the trial Court passed the impugned common order on merits partly allowing both the applications.
3. The ultimate result of the petitions is not the subject-matter under challenge in these two appeals, and it is only an observation made by the trial Court in Para 22 of the common order that is challenged herein as being opposed to the unambiguous language of Section 26 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act').
4. Sri Mohammed Imran Khan, learned Counsel for the appellant, reiterated the contentions raised in the grounds of appeals.
It is not disputed that the appellant, who was the second petitioner before the trial Court, converted herself into Islam and married Sri Anwarullah Khan on 1.2.1981, while her father Sri D. Balakrishna died on 16.5.1998. The trial Court construed the effect of Section 26 of the Act, as disentitling her to the succession of the property of her father because of her conversion. However, the language of Section 26 of the Act is explicit and clear that the disinheritance due to conversion of a Hindu to another religion is only in respect of the children bom to him or her after such conversion, but not in respect of converting herself or himself. It is obvious that this statutory provision was misread as disinheriting the second petitioner/appellant also contrary to the admitted facts.
5. Therefore, the appellant has to succeed not to have the effect of these observations on further proceedings of the suit.
6. Therefore, the observation of the I-Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Secunderabad in the common order in I.A. No. 400 of 2004 and 401 of 2004 in O.S. No. 10 of 2004, dated 19.4.2005, in Para 22 therein concerning the disentitlement of the appellant/second petitioner to inheritance to the property of her deceased father D. Balakrishna shall stand deleted and the said observation shall not influence the ultimate result of the suit on merits in accordance with law and the appeals are allowed accordingly, without costs.