MAHALIAMMAN TEMPLE AND VIGNESWARAR KOIL Vs. VIJAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O. S. No. 344 of 1967, Subordinate Judge's Court, Coimbatore, is the appellant herein. The plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent. The suit was laid for a declaration of plaintiff's title to plaint A and B Schedule properties. There are seven items in A Schedule and two items in B Schedule properties. The litigation had a chequered career. Thus suit O. S. No. 344/67 - was tried along with two other suits - O. S. No. 537 of 1967 and 538 of 1968, which are not relevant at this stage. Plaintiff claimed that she is absolutely entitled to A and B Schedule properties. The first defendant, Temple (Mahaliamman Temple and Vigneswara Temple represented by its Trustees) claimed that the properties have been dedicated to the Temple and the plaintiff has only a life estate in 'B' Schedule properties.

(2.) The short facts to understand the scope of controversy in the suit are as follows: Plaint A and B schedule properties belonged to one C. S. Arumugham Pillai. He had a son Manickam Pillai. One Sadachiammal was the wife of Arumugham Pillai. The plaintiff, Vijammal, is the wife of Manickam Pillai, Arumugham Pillai executed Ext. B-11, Will dated 29-8-1932 regarding plaint A and B schedule properties. The Will, Ext. B-11, is available at pages 140-147 of the printed paper book. Under the Will his wife Sadachaimmal was given a life estate over A schedule properties and the reminder was bequeathed to first defendant temple. The direction in Ext. B-11 was that Sadachimmal was to collect the entire income of A schedule properties and enjoy the same for her life time and after her life the entire income shall be spent for various vazhipadus (offerings) like Annadanam, vilakku, Naivethyam and other charitable purposes of the first defendant Temple. Similarly B Schedule properties were bequeathed to plaintiff (daughter-in-law) for her life and in the absence of any child to her the said properties shall vest in the first defendant. Temple for the various offerings (charities) mentioned herein above in the Will. Manickam Pillai, son of the testator, predeceased him. He died in 1934. Armugham Pillai died in 1946. His wife Sadachiammal died on 13-6-1957, after Hindu Succession Act. Armugham Pillai's daughter-in-law Vijayammal, the plaintiff, filed the suit for a declaration of her title to plaint A and B, Schedule properties. According to her, the properties dealt with in Ext. B-11 Will by Armugham Pillai dated 29-8-1932 were the joint family properties and so Armugham Pillai was incompetent to execute the Will. Armugham Pillai, being a coparcener in the family, was incompetent to execute Ext. B-11, and dedicate the properties to the temples by Will dated 29-8-1932, when Manickam Pillai, his son, was alive. It was further contended that the life estate granted to Sadachiammal (A schedule properties) and the life estate granted to the plaintiff (B schedule properties) were so given, in lieu of their right to maintenance. Since Sadachiammal died after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her life estate enlarged into an absolute estate and on death of Sadachiammal on 13-6-1957, the plaintiff became absolutely entitled to plaint A and B schedule properties.

(3.) The first defendant in the suit pleaded that Armugham Pillai was the sole surviving coparcener when he died in 1946. Ext. B-11 became operative only then; and as sole surviving coparcener he was entitled to execute the Will, even if the properties dealt with; were joint family properties. According to the first defendant the properties mentioned in Ext. B-11 were the self acquired properties of Armugham Pillai, in which case he was fully competent to execute the document Ext. B-11 as he did. Defendant pleaded that there is dedication of A and B schedule properties to the Temple in Ext. B-11 and not a mere charge as pleaded by the plaintiff. Since Sadachiammal was given only a life interest in A schedule properties, on her death on 13-6-1957, the properties, vested in the Temple and plaintiff is incompetent to lay claim to A schedule properties. Defendant further contended that even with regard to B schedule properties, plaintiff was given only a life estate under Ext. B-11 and after her life, properties will vest in the first defendant Temple, for the charities mentioned in Ext. B-11.