B SHIVARAMIAH Vs. RANGAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment in R. A. 66 of 1946-17 on the file of the Additional Subordinate Judge, Bangalore, dismissing the appeal and confirming the judgment in O. S. No. 168 of 1945-46 on the file of the Second Munsiff, Bangalore.

(2.) The suit was for declaration of plaintiff's title to and for possession of the suit property with mesne profits. It is not disputed that Venkatappa was the original owner of the property and that he under a will bequeathed the suit property to his grand daughter the first defendant and her husband deceased Ramiah, with a life estate to Thimmi the mother of the first defendant. Thimmi and Ramiah are dead. The plaintiff claims the properties as the adopted son of Ramiah. The learned Munsiff held that the adoption was not true and dismissed plaintiff's suit. The learned Subordinate Judge holds that under the will the first defendant and her husband took a joint tenancy and as she was the survivor of the whole property, the adoption even if true did not divest her of the suit property which is her sthridhana property. On the other hand it is contended that the first defendant and her husband took the property under the will as tenants in common and that after the death of Ramiah his heir acquired his interest.

(3.) The main point, therefore, for consideration in this case is, whether, when a property is bequeathed under a will to more than one person, they take the property as joint tenants or tenants in common. The question has often come up before this Court for consideration when properties had been bequeathed or gifted to more than one person. In some of the cases they were members of a Joint family and in some other cases they were, as in this case, husband and wife, but the principle well recognises in all cases of this kind is the same and it is to find out from the document and the surrounding circumstances the intentions of the donor or testator. There is, however, it is urged some conflict of opinion in the decision reported in 32 Mys C C R 164 and 6 Mys L J 301. It was observed in the latter case, in a case of a gift to a daughter and son-in-law by a person who had no sons: "that the daughter and the son-in-law took the bequest as tenants in common and not as Joint tenants and that on the death of either of them the interest of the deceased would pass to his or her heirs." A contrary view is taken in '32 Mys C C R 104 and that is why the matter needs some consideration.