CHINNAMMAL Vs. PONNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question for decision in this appeal by special leave is whether on a true construction of Exh. B-10, the Will executed by one Veeramuthu Udayar on May 20, 1932, the respondent became entitled to the suit properties. The courts below have taken divergent views as to the interpretation of that Will.

(2.) Admittedly the suit properties belonged to late Veeramuthu. He bequeathed those properties under Exh. B-10. The said Will was written in Tamil. The Official translation of the same reads as follows:--

(3.) The first appellant is the widow of the testator. The second appellant is her son-in-law, to whom she had assigned her interest in the suit properties. The respondent is the widowed daughter-in-law of the testator. As mentioned earlier the will in question was executed on May 20,1932. Sometime thereafter the testator died. The only son of the testator appears to have been a minor at the time of his death. That son namely Govindaraju Udayar died in 1954 leaving behind him his widow, the respondent. Govindaraju died after attaining majority. After his death, the respondent sued for the possession of the suit properties on the strength of Exh. B-l0. The trial court dismissed that suit holding that she was not entitled to the suit properties under the will but the first appellate court reversed the decree of the trial court and decreed the suit. In second appeal a learned single judge of the Madras High Court affirmed the judgment of the first appellate court concurring with the view taken by that court that under Exh.B-10, Govindaraju got an absolute estate and that estate devolved on the respondent on his death. The question for our decision is how far the conclusions reached by the first appellate court and the High Court are correct.