R MUTHAMMAL DIED Vs. SUBRAINANIASWAMI DEVASTHANAM TIRUCHENDUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed on leave granted by the High Court of Madras against its judgment and decree dated 20-1-1947, by which the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin dated 30-3-1943, was substantially modified.

(2.) Before the application for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee could be filed, the first defendant (Ramasami Pillai) died, and the application for leave was filed by his widow, R. Muthammal, who was the fourth defendant in the suit. R. Muthammal also died soon afterwards, and her place was taken by Parameswari Thayammal (her daughter born on Ramasami Pillai), who was the fifth defendant in this case. Along with these three defendants, the other members of Ramasami Pillai's family were also joined defendants. The suit was filed by Sri Subramaniaswami Devasthanam, Tiruchendur (hereinafter called for brevity, the Devasthanam), and the Devasthanam is the only contesting respondent in this Court.

(3.) One Poosa Pichai Pillai had five sons and three daughters, of whom Meenkashisundaram Pillai died on 21-5-1919. Before his death, Meenakshisundaram Pillai executed a registered will on 20-5-1919, and a registered codicil on 21-5-1919. By these documents, he left his entire property to his only son, M. Picha Pillai, with the condition that should he die without issue, the property was to go to the Devasthanam. M. Picha Pillai died a bacheles on 10-12-1927. Three claimants claimed the property after his death. The first naturally was the Devasthanam claiming under the gift over to it. The other two were the heirs of M. Picha Pillai, who asserted that the gift over was void, and Meenakshisundaram's wife's brother and sister. Arunachala Irungol Pillai and N. S. Muthammal (third defendant), respectively, who clamed under an alleged will of M. Picha Pillai. The heirs of M. Picha Pillai were defendants 7, 8, 10, 13 and 14, the father of defendant 9, and the first defendant. These claimants denied the claim of the Devasthanam, and contended that the will and the codicil above mentioned gave an absolute estate to M. Picha Pillai, and that the gift over to the Devasthanam was, therefore, void. The Devasthanam filed O. S. No. 57 of 1932 for declaration and possession of the properties covered by the will, together with other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the heirs of M. Picha Pillai and the present defendants 15 and 16 (two of the three sons of Arunachala Irungol Pillai) assigned their interest in favour of the Devasthanam. The result of the suit, therefore, was that a decree in favour of the Devasthanam was passed in regard to the interest of the assignors, but it was dismissed as regards the interest of N. S. Muthammal (third defendant) and Pothiadia Trungol Pillai (second defendant) who had not entered into the compromise. It may be mentioned here that by Ex. D-22, a registered agreement dated 20-5-1928, the heirs had already agreed to give to Arunachala Irungol Pillai and N. S. Muthammal 1/8th share each respectively in the properties of M. Picha Pillai. Thus, by this compromise the Devasthanam received 5/6th share of the properties of M. Picha Pillai, the remaining 1/6th, going to Pothiadia Irungol Pillai (1/24th) and N. S. Muthammal. (1/8th ). The Devasthanam filed an appeal in the High Court against the dismissal of the suit in respect of this 1/6th share and failed. An appeal was then taken to the Judicial Committee, which also failed. The judgment of the Privy Council is reported in Sri Subaramaniaswami Temple vs. Ramaswamia Pillai, 1950-1 Mad LJ 300.