GNAMBAL AMMAL Vs. T RAJU AYYAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against an appellate judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated 27-11-1945, reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram made in O. S. No. 34 of 1943.

(2.) There is no dispute about the material facts of this case which lie within a short compass and the controversy centres round one point only which turns upon the construction of a will left by one Kothandarama Ayyar to whom the properties in suit admittedly belonged. Kothandarama, who was a Hindu inhabitant of the District of Tanjore and owned considerable properties, died on 25-4-1905, leaving behind him as his near relations his adoptive mother, Vala Ammal, his widow, Parbati, and two daughters, Nagamal and Gnambal, of whom Nagammal, who became a widow during the testator's lifetime, had an infant daughter named Alamelu. Kothandarama executed his last will on 13-3-1905 and by this will, the genuineness of which is not disputed in the present litigation, he gave an authority to his widow to adopt unto him a son of his second daughter Gnambal, should she beget one before January 1908 or in the alternative any of the sons of his two nephews, if the widow so chose

(3.) The suit, out of which the appeal arises was commenced by Raju Ayyar, who was a son of one of the testator's nephews and was taken in adoption by the widow in terms of the will and it was for recovery of possession of certain properties, known as Kothangudi properties which formed part of the testator's estate on the allegation that under the will mentioned above, these properties were given to Nagammal, the widowed daughter of the testator for her life time, but as there was no disposition of the remaining interest after the death of the life tenant, the properties vested in the plaintiff as the adopted son and heir of the deceased or the death of Nagammal which took place on 3-1-1943. Gnambal, the second daughter of the testator, was the first and main defendant in the suit and she resisted the plaintiff's claim primarily on the ground that there was no intestacy as regards the suit properties after the termination of the life interest of Nagammal, and that under the terms of the will itself she was entitled to get these properties in absolute right after the death of Nagammal subject to payment of a sum of Rs. 5000 to Alamelu, the daughter of Nagammal. Alamelu was made defendant 2 in the suit and as she died when the suit was pending in the trial Court, her heirs were impleaded as defendants 3 to 9.