//
you're reading...
legal issues

ACT: Hindu Law-Hindu embracing another religion-whether retains original cast. On reconversion to Hinduism-Whether performance of any particular ceremony or expiatory rites necessary. Representation of the people Act.-Parliamentary election-Constituency reserved for scheduled castes-Whether a Hindu Adi Dravida (scheduled cast) on reconversion to Hinduism belongs to scheduled castes. HEADNOTE: The first respondent was elected to the Lok Sabha from a constituency which was reserved for the Scheduled Castes, The appellant challenged the election of the first respondent on the ground that he was not a member of the Scheduled Castes. The election Tribunal found that the first respondent belonged to the Scheduled Caste and upheld the election. Hence this appeal. The appellant urged that the parents and the sisters of the respondent were shown to be Christians and the respondent was born a Christian and there was no way he could acquire a caste and become an Adi Dravida on conversion to Hinduism. Dismissing the appeal. ^ HELD: At all relevant time, the first respondent was a Hindu Adi Dravida and professed no religion other than Hinduism. The precedents particularly those from South India, clearly establish that no particular ceremony is prescribed for reconversion to Hinduism of a person who had earlier embraced another religion. Unless the practice of the Caste makes it necessary no expiatory rites need be performed and, ordinarily, he regains this caste unless the community does not accept him. In fact, it may not be accurate to say that he regains his caste, it may be more accurate to say that he never lost his caste in the first instance when he embraced another religion. The practice of caste however irrational it may appear to our reason and however repugnant it may appear to our moral and social sense, is so deeprooted in the Indian people that its mark does not seem to disappear on conversion to a different religion. If it disappears, it disappears only to re 974 appear on reconversion. The mark of caste does not seem to really disappear even after some generations after conversion. [981A-C] Administrator-General of Madras v. Anandachari & Ors. ILR 9 MADRAS 466, Muthusami Mudalia & Anr. v. Masilamani & Ors. ILR 33 MADRAS 342, Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa Konar, 67 MADRAS LAW JOURNAL 399, Ramayya v. Mrs. Josephine Elizabeth, AIR 1937 MAD 172, Goona Durgaprasad Rao v. Sudarsanaswami, ILR 1940 MAD 653, Rajgopal v. Armugon & Ors. [1969] I SCR 254, Rajgopal v. Armugam [1969] I SCR 254, Perumal Nadar v; Ponnuswami [1971] I SCR 49, Vermani v. Vermani AIR 1943 LAHORE 51 and Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwer Parashram & Ors.[1954] SCR 817, referred to.= PETITIONER: S. ANBALAGAN Vs. RESPONDENT: B. DEVARAJAN & ORS.= published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=9653

ACT:

Hindu  Law-Hindu embracing  another  religion-whether

retains original  cast. On  reconversion to Hinduism-Whether

performance of any particular ceremony or  expiatory rites

necessary.

Representation   of   the  people   Act.-Parliamentary

election-Constituency reserved for scheduled castes-Whether

a Hindu  Adi Dravida  (scheduled cast) on  reconversion  to

Hinduism belongs to scheduled castes.

 

 

 

HEADNOTE:

The first respondent was elected to the Lok Sabha from

a constituency which was reserved for the Scheduled Castes,

The  appellant  challenged  the   election  of   the  first

respondent on  the ground  that he  was not  a member of the

Scheduled Castes. The election Tribunal found that the first

respondent belonged  to the  Scheduled Caste  and upheld the

election. Hence  this appeal.  The appellant  urged that the

parents and  the sisters  of the respondent were shown to be

Christians and the respondent was born a Christian and there

was no way he could acquire  a caste and  become  an  Adi

Dravida on conversion to Hinduism.

Dismissing the appeal.

^

HELD: At  all relevant time, the first respondent was a

Hindu Adi  Dravida and professed  no  religion  other than

Hinduism.

The precedents  particularly those  from  South  India,

clearly establish  that no particular ceremony is prescribed

for reconversion  to Hinduism  of a  person who  had earlier

embraced another  religion. Unless the practice of the Caste

makes it necessary no expiatory rites need be performed and,

ordinarily, he regains this caste unless the community does

not accept  him. In fact, it may not be accurate to say that

he regains his caste, it may be more accurate to say that he

never lost  his caste in the first instance when he embraced

another religion.  The practice  of caste however irrational

it may appear to  our reason  and however  repugnant it may

appear to  our moral  and social  sense, is so deeprooted in

the Indian  people that  its mark does not seem to disappear

on conversion  to a different religion. If it disappears, it

disappears only to re

974

appear on  reconversion. The  mark of caste does not seem to

really disappear   even  after   some  generations   after

conversion. [981A-C]

Administrator-General of  Madras v.  Anandachari & Ors.

ILR 9  MADRAS 466,  Muthusami Mudalia & Anr. v. Masilamani &

Ors. ILR 33 MADRAS 342, Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa Konar, 67

MADRAS LAW JOURNAL 399, Ramayya v. Mrs. Josephine Elizabeth,

AIR 1937  MAD 172,  Goona Durgaprasad Rao v. Sudarsanaswami,

ILR 1940  MAD 653,  Rajgopal v.  Armugon & Ors. [1969] I SCR

254, Rajgopal  v. Armugam [1969] I SCR 254, Perumal Nadar v;

Ponnuswami [1971]  I SCR  49, Vermani  v. Vermani  AIR 1943

LAHORE 51  and Chatturbhuj  Vithaldas  Jasani  v.  Moreshwer

Parashram & Ors.[1954] SCR 817, referred to.

PETITIONER:
S. ANBALAGAN

Vs.

RESPONDENT:
B. DEVARAJAN & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT05/12/1983

BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
BENCH:
REDDY, O. CHINNAPPA (J)
FAZALALI, SYED MURTAZA
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)

CITATION:
1984 AIR 411 1984 SCR (1) 973
1984 SCC (2) 112 1983 SCALE (2)849
CITATOR INFO :
F 1984 SC 600 (19)
R 1984 SC1260 (15)
ACT:
Hindu Law-Hindu embracing another religion-whether
retains original cast. On reconversion to Hinduism-Whether
performance of any particular ceremony or expiatory rites
necessary.
Representation of the people Act.-Parliamentary
election-Constituency reserved for scheduled castes-Whether
a Hindu Adi Dravida (scheduled cast) on reconversion to
Hinduism belongs to scheduled castes.

 

HEADNOTE:
The first respondent was elected to the Lok Sabha from
a constituency which was reserved for the Scheduled Castes,
The appellant challenged the election of the first
respondent on the ground that he was not a member of the
Scheduled Castes. The election Tribunal found that the first
respondent belonged to the Scheduled Caste and upheld the
election. Hence this appeal. The appellant urged that the
parents and the sisters of the respondent were shown to be
Christians and the respondent was born a Christian and there
was no way he could acquire a caste and become an Adi
Dravida on conversion to Hinduism.
Dismissing the appeal.
^
HELD: At all relevant time, the first respondent was a
Hindu Adi Dravida and professed no religion other than
Hinduism.
The precedents particularly those from South India,
clearly establish that no particular ceremony is prescribed
for reconversion to Hinduism of a person who had earlier
embraced another religion. Unless the practice of the Caste
makes it necessary no expiatory rites need be performed and,
ordinarily, he regains this caste unless the community does
not accept him. In fact, it may not be accurate to say that
he regains his caste, it may be more accurate to say that he
never lost his caste in the first instance when he embraced
another religion. The practice of caste however irrational
it may appear to our reason and however repugnant it may
appear to our moral and social sense, is so deeprooted in
the Indian people that its mark does not seem to disappear
on conversion to a different religion. If it disappears, it
disappears only to re
974
appear on reconversion. The mark of caste does not seem to
really disappear even after some generations after
conversion. [981A-C]
Administrator-General of Madras v. Anandachari & Ors.
ILR 9 MADRAS 466, Muthusami Mudalia & Anr. v. Masilamani &
Ors. ILR 33 MADRAS 342, Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa Konar, 67
MADRAS LAW JOURNAL 399, Ramayya v. Mrs. Josephine Elizabeth,
AIR 1937 MAD 172, Goona Durgaprasad Rao v. Sudarsanaswami,
ILR 1940 MAD 653, Rajgopal v. Armugon & Ors. [1969] I SCR
254, Rajgopal v. Armugam [1969] I SCR 254, Perumal Nadar v;
Ponnuswami [1971] I SCR 49, Vermani v. Vermani AIR 1943
LAHORE 51 and Chatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwer
Parashram & Ors.[1954] SCR 817, referred to.
In the instant case the birth extract of the first
respondent shows his parents as Hindu Adi Dravidas. Through
out his educational career, he was treated as a Hindu
student belonging to the Scheduled Castes and was awarded
scholarships on that basis. The school records relating to
his children also show them as Hindu Adi Dravidas. He never
attended a church. On the other hand there is acceptable
evidence to show that he was offering worship to Hindu
deities in Hindu temples and that his marriage was performed
according to Hindu custom and rites. Even assuming that the
parents and sisters of the first respondent had become
Christians and that the first respondent himself had been
baptised when he was seven months old, there is no
difficulty in holding, on the evidence in the case, that the
first respondent had long since reverted to Hinduism and to
the Adi Dravida Caste. There is not a scrap of acceptable
evidence to show that he ever professed Christianity after
he came of age, On the other hand, every bit of evidence in
the case shows that from his childhood, he was always
practising Hinduism and was treated by everyone concerned as
an Adi Dravida. There is then the outstanding circumstance
that the voters of the Constituency reserved for the
Scheduled Castes accepted his candidature for the reserved
seat and elected him to the Lok Sabha twice. [891H; 892A-E]

 

JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 544 of
1981.
From the Judgment and Order dated 23rd December, 1980
of the Madras High Court at Madras in Election Petition No.
1 of 1980.
Dr. Y.S. Chitale, P.N. Ramalngam and A.T.M. Sampath for
the Appellant.
M.C. Bhandare, K. Rajendra Chowdhary and K.S. Chowdhary
for the Respondents.
A.V. Rangam for the Respondent No. 7.
975
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHINNAPPA
REDDY, J. 3, 26, 112 adult men and women voters of Rasipuram
Parliamentary Constituency reserved for the Scheduled Castes
accepted the candidature of the first Respondent, B.
Devarajan for the reserved seat, apparently considered him
as a member of the Scheduled Castes, voted for him and
elected him to the Lok Sabha, by a convincing majority of
nearly sixty thousand votes at the election held in January
1980. And, it was not the first time. He was in fact a
sitting member of the Lok Sabha having been elected from the
same reserved constituency at the previous general election
also, But the verdict of the people was not sufficient for
the appellant, S. Anbalagan, who secured 1,76,240 votes in
the January 1980 poll and lost the election. He wanted the
verdict of an Election Tribunal on the question whether the
respondent was a Charistian and not a member of the
Scheduled Castes, as claimed by him. So he filed an election
petition questioning the election on that ground. The
Election Tribunal on an eleborate consideration of the
evidence held that the appellant belonged to the Scheduled
Castes and, on that finding, upheld the election. Anbalagan
has preferred this appeal.
Dr. Chitale, learned counsel for the appellant,
canvassed the finding of the Election Tribunal that the
respondent was a Hindu Adi Dravida and, therefore, a member
of the Scheduled Castes. He argued that the parents and the
sisters of the respondent were shown to be Christians and
the respondent though obviously a Christian himself was
pretending to be, a member of the Scheduled Castes for the
purpose of gaining some advantages. He invited our attention
to the Baptismal certificate and certain other documents and
urged that the Respondent was born a Christian and there was
no way he could acquire a caste and become an Adi Dravida on
conversion to Hinduism.
In order to properly appreciate the questions involved,
it is necessary first to understand the legal position in
regard to caste status on conversion or reconversion to
Hinduism.
In Administrator-General of Madras v. Anandachari &
Others(1), a learned single Judge of the Madras High Court
held that the conversion of a Hindu Brahmin to Christianity
rendered him, according to Hindu Law, an out caste and
degraded. It was also observed that the degradation might be
atoned for and the convert readmitted to his status as a
Brahmin, if he at any time during his
976
life renounced Christianity and performed the rites of
expiation enjoined by his caste.
In Muthusami Mudaliar & Anr. v. Masilamani & Others(1)
Shankaran Nair, J. explained at length the process of
formation of castes and also pointed out how simple the
matter of reconversion to Hinduism was when a Hindu changed
his religion and later reverted back to Hinduism.
In Gurusami Nadar v. Irulappa Konar(2), Varadachariar,
J. explained the observations made in certain cases by
Ananta Krishna Iyer, J. about the necessity of expiatory
ceremonies for reconversion to Hinduism and pointed out that
in those cases, the alleged reconversion was into the
Brahmin community of Hindus and it was possible to suggest
that certain vedic rites would have been adopted in such
cases. Expiatory ceremonies, it was further pointed out,
would be necessary if such was the practice of the community
and not otherwise. One had, therefore, only to look to the
sense of the community and no more. In Ramayya v. Mrs.
Josephine Elizabeth(3) Venkatasubba Rao, OCJ and
Venkataramana Rao, J. approved the observations of
Varadachariar, J. and thought it unnecessary to pursue the
matter further. Mookett and Krishnaswami Ayyangar, JJ. in
Goona Durgaprasad Rao v. Sudarsanaswami(4) observed that a
convert from the Baliji caste to Christianity, on
reconversion went back into the fold of the Baliji community
and where there was no evidence about the necessity for
expiatory ceremonies, it was hardly right for the court to
erect a barrier which the autonomy of the caste did not
require, simply because, in some other community expiatory
ceremonies were thought necessary.
In Rajagopal v. Armugam and others(5), the appellant
was elected from a constituency reserved for members of the
Schedule Castes and the election was questioned on the
ground that he was not a Hindu but a Christian and that he
was not qualified be elected from a constituency reserved
for the Scheduled Castes. The
977
court found that the appellant had become a Christian in
1949 and that from about 1967 onwards he certainly started
professing the Hindu religion. The court however, held that
the appellant had lost his Adi Dravida Hindu caste on
embracing Christianity and, on the evidence before the
court, it was not possible to hold that he had regained his
caste on reconversion to Cinduism. The general question
whether membership of a caste could be acquired by
conversion or reconversion to Hinduism was not decided in
the case,
Rajagopal, who succeeded at the election held in 1967,
but whose election was set aside on the ground that he was a
Christian and not a member of the Scheduled Castes and
Armugam who lost the election in 1967, but successfully
challenged the election of Rajagopal by way of an election
petition (vide Rajagopal v. Armugam(1) referred to in the
previous paragraph) were again contestants at the election
held in 1972 from the same constituency reserved for members
of the Scheduled Castes, Rajgopal was again Successful in
the election. His election was once more impeached by
Arumugam. But this time Rajgopal farred better. His election
was upheld first by the High Court and then by the Supreme
Court: (1976 (3) S.C.R. 82) The Supreme Court held that the
Question whether Rajagopal embraced Christianity in 1949 and
whether he was reconeverted to Hinduism was concluded by the
earlier dectsion of the court. The view of the High Court ie
the immediate case before them that on reconversion to
Hinduism, he could revert to his original caste if he was
accepted as such by the other members of the caste was
accepted as correct On the evidence, it was found that after
reconversion to Hinduism he was recognised and accepted as a
member of the Adi Dravida Hindu caste by the other members
of the community. The court consisting of Chandrachud, J.
(as he then was), Bhagwati and Sarkaria, JJ. noticed that it
was not an infrequent phenomenon-in South India for a person
to continue to be regarded as belonging to his original
caste even after conversion to Christianity The decisions of
the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Kothapalli Narasayya v.
Jammana Jogi and K. Narasimha Reddy v.G. Bhupatti were
noticed. It was then observed:
“It cannot, therefore, be laid down as an absolute
978
rule uniformly applicable in all cases that whenever a
member of a caste is converted from Hinduism to
Christianity, he loses his membership of the caste. It
is true that ordinarily that on conversion to
Christianity, he would cease to be a member of the
caste, but that is not an invariable rule. It would
depend on the structure of the caste and its rules and
regulations. There are castes, particularly in South
India, where the consequence does not follow on
conversion since such castes comprise from Hindus and
Christians”.
The learned Judges than proceeded to consider the question
whether Rajagopal could once again become a member of Adi
Dravida caste even if it was assume that he had ceased to be
such on conversion to Christianity. After referring to the
Madras cases already noticed by us earlier, it was held:
“These cases show that the consistent view taken
in this country from the time Administrator-General of
Madras v. Anandachari was decided, that is, since 1886,
has been that on reconversion to Hinduism, a person can
once again become a member of the caste in which he has
born and to which he belonged before conversion to
another religion, if the members of the caste accept
him as a member. There is no reason either on principle
or on authority which should compel us to disregard
this view which has prevailed for almost a century and
lay down a different rule on the subject. If a person
who has embraced another religion can be reconverted to
Hinduism, there is no rational principle why he should
not be able to come back to his caste, if the other
members of the csste are prepared to readmit him as a
member. It stands to reason that he should be able to
come back to the fold to which he once belonged
provided of course the community is willing to take him
within the fold ..”
“……. A Mahar or a Koli or a Mala would not be
recognised as anything but a Mahar or a Koli or a Mala
after reconversion to Hinduism and he would suffer from
the same social and economic disabilities from which he
suffered before he was converted to another religion.
It is, therefore, obvious that the object and purpose
of the Constitution (Scheduled Castes)
979
order, 1950 would be advanced rather than retarded by
taking the view that on reconversion to Hinduism a
person can once again become a member of the Scheduled
Caste to which he belonged prior to his conversion. We
accordingly agree with the view taken by the High Court
that on reconversion to Hinduism, the 1st respondent
could once again revert to his original Adi Dravida
caste if he was accepted as such by the other members
of the cast.”
In Perumal Nader v. Ponnuswami,(1) the question arose
whether Annapazham, daughter of an Indian Christian and
herself a Christian by birth. could be converted to Hinduism
without the performance of any expiatory ceremonies ? The
court held that formal ceremony of purification or expiation
was unnecessary. It was observed:
“A person may be a Hindu by birth or by
conversion. A mere theoretical allegiance to the Hindu
faith by a persion born in another faith does not
convert him into a Hindu, nor is a bare declaration
that he is a Hindu sufficient to convert him to
Hinduism, But a bona fide intention to be converted to
the Hindu faith, accompanied by conduct unequivocally
expressing that intention may be sufficient evidence of
conversion. No formal ceremony of purification or
expiation is necessary to effectuate conversion.”
All the cases so far considered are from South India.
To conclude the discussion, we may also refer to Vermani v.
Vermani(2) and Ghatturbhuj Vithaldas Jasani v. Moreshwer
Parashram & others(3) both of which are cases from
elsewhere.
In Virmani v. Virmani, a Full Bench of the Lahore High
Court following the decision of the Madras High Court in ILR
1940 MADRAS 653 held that it was not necessary for a Hindu
convert to Christianity to undergo any expiatory ceremonies
before he could revert to his original religion. His conduct
and the circumstance that
980
he was received by his community were sufficient to
establish his reversion to Hinduism.
In Chatturbhnj’s case, a question arose whether a
member of the Mahar caste which was one of the Scheduled
Castes continued to be a member of the Mahar caste despite
his conversion to the tenets Mahanubhava Panth, a sect, the
founder of which repudiated the caste system and a
multiplicity of Gods. Bose, J. after noticing the
complexities brought in the train of conversion, observed:
“Looked at from the secular point of view, there
are three factors which have to be considered: (1) the
reactions of the old body, (2) the intentions of the
individual himself and (3) the rules of the new order.
If the old order is tolerant of the new faith and sees
no reason to outcaste or ex-communicate the convert and
the individual himself desires and intends to retain
his old social and political ties, the conversion is
only nominal for all practical purposes and when we
have to consider the legsl and political rights of the
old body the views of the new faith hardly matter. The
new body is free to ostracise and outcaste the convert
from its fold if he does not adhere to its tenets, but
it can hardly claim the right to interfere in matters
which concern the political rights of the old body when
neither the old body nor the convert is seeking either
legal or political favours from the new as opposed to
purely spiritual advantage. On the other hand, if the
convert has shown by his conduct and dealings that his
break from the old order is so complete and final that
he no longer regards himself as a member of the old
body and there is no reconversion and readmittance to
the old fold, it would be wrong to hold that he can
nevertheless claim temporal privileges and political
advantages which are special to the old order.”
Bose, J. found that whatever the views of the founder of the
Mahanubhava sect night have been about caste, it was evident
that there had been no rigid adherance to them among his
followers in later years. They had either changed their view
or they had not been able to keep a tight enough control
over converts who choose to retain their old caste customs.
On a consideration of the evidence it was
981
found that the convert from the Mahar caste retained his
caste even after conversion.
These precedents, particularly those from South India,
clearly establish that no particular ceremony is prescribed
for conversion to Hinduism of a person who had earlier
embraced another religion. Unless the practice of the caste
makes it necessary, expiatory rites need be performed and,
ordinarily, he regains his caste unless the community does
not accept him. In fact, it may not be accurate to say that
he regains his caste; it may be more accurate to say that he
never lost his caste in the first instance when he embraced
another religion. The practice of caste however irrational
it may appear to our reason and however repugnant it may
appear to our moral and social science, is so deep-rooted in
the Indian people that its mark does not seem to disappear
only conversion to a different religion. If it disappears,
only to reappear on reconversion. The mark of caste does not
seem to really disappear even after some generations after
conversion. In Andhra Pradesh and in Tamil Nadu, there are
several thousands of Christian families whose forefathers
became Christians and who, though they profess the Christian
religion, nonetheless observe the practice of Caste. There
are Christian Reddies, Christian Kammas, Ceristian Nadars,
Christian Adi-Andhras, Christian Adi Dravidas and so on. The
practice of their caste is so rigorous that there are
intermarriages with Hindus of the same caste but not with
Christians of another caste. Now, if such a Christian
becomes a Hindu, surely he will revert to his original
caste, if he had lost it at all. In fact this process goes
on continuously in India and generation by generation lost
sheep appear to return to the casts-fold and are once again
assimilated in that fold. This appears to be particularly so
in the case of members of the Scheduled Castes, who embrace
other religions in their quest for liberation, but return to
their old religion on finding that their disabilities have
clung to them with great tenacity. We do not think that any
different principle will apply to the case of conversion to
Hinduism of a person whose fore-fathers had abandoned
Hinduism and embraced another religion from the principle
applicable to the case of reconversion to Hinduism of a
person who himself had abandoned Hinduism and embraced
another religion.
Now, what are the facts of the present case ? The birth
extract of the first respondent, Devarajan shows that his
parents as Hindu Adi Dravidas. Through out his educational
career, he was treated as a Hindu student belonging to the
Scheduled Castes and was
982
awarded scholarships on that basis. The school records
relating to his children also show them as Hindu Adi
Dravidas. On one occasion in the admission register of a
school, he was wrongly shown as Adi Dravida Christian, but
it was corrected as Adi Dravida as far back as in 1948. He
never attended a church. On the other hand, there is
acceptable evidence to show that he was offering worship to
Hindu deities in Hindu temples and that his marriage was
performed according to Hindu custom and rites. Our attention
was however, drawn to the finding of the Tribunal that the
sisters of the first respondent professed Christianity as
revealed by their service registers. Our attention was
further invited to certain evidence indicating that the
parents of the first respondent had become Christians and
that the first respondent himself had been baptised when he
was seven months old. Even assuming that the parents and
sisters of the first respondent had become Christians and
that the first respondent himself had been baptised when he
was seven months old, we see no difficulty in holding, on
the evidence in the case, that the first respondent had long
since reverted to Hinduism and to the Adi Dravida caste.
There is not a scrap of acceptable evidence to show that he
ever professed Christianity after he came of age. On the
other hand, every bit of evidence in the case shows that
from his childhood, he was always practising Hindism and was
treated by everyone concerned as an Adi Dravidh. There is
then the outstanding circumstance that the voters of the
Rasipuram Parliamentary Constituency reserved for the
Scheduled Castes accepted his candidature for the reserved
seat and elected him to the Lok Sabha twice. We have no
doubt whatsoever that at all relevant times, he was a Hindu
Adi Dravida and professed no religion other than Hinduism.
The case was rightly decided by the Election Tribunal and
the appeal is accordingly dismissed with costs.
H.S.K. Appeal dismissed.
983

 

 

 

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,982,747 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,875 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com