VUTUKURI BALA NAGAMMA Vs. VUTUKURI HANUMANTHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This second appeal is against the decree and judgment of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Guntur confirming that of the District Munsif of Gurzala in O. S. No. 262 of 1945, a suit filed by the managing trustee of Sree Sitaramaswamivaru for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property to the plaintiff or to the plaintiff and defendants 2 to 6 and subsequent mesne profits.

(2.) Hanumanthu, the plaintiff, Ealayya, the husband of the first defendant, Chinna Palayya and Kanaka Palayya, defendants 2 and 3 are the divided sons of one Veerayya. Defendants . 4 and 5 are the sons-in-law of Veerayya. Defendant 6 is the grandson of Veerayya by his daughter. Veerayya constructed a temple for God Sitaramaswamivaru and executed a will, Ex. P. 1. dated 22-8-1934 endowing certain properties to the temple and also prescribing the machinery for its management. Under that will, his four sons were constituted trustees and his two sons-in-law and the grandson were appointed trustee members. Palayya, his eldest son, was appointed managing trustee. After the death of Veerayya, the properties endowed were managed in accordance with the directions given in his will. Palayya executed another will Ex. P. 3 dated 20-8- 1941 endowing other properties and also directing the person appointed as managing trustee for God Sree Sitaramaswamivaru after his lifetime to manage the properties. The plaintiff, the present managing trustee, filed the aforesaid suit for delivery of possession of the plaint schedule property and for mesne profits. The suit was decreed by the courts below.

(3.) It is not necessary to particularise all the contentions raised by the defendants and the findings of the courts as Mr. Ramanarasu confined his argument only to one question. He argued that as Veerayya appointed the first defendant's husband as one of the trustees without words of express limitation, her husband acquired an estate of inheritance. I shall now proceed to consider the cases cited by him in support of his argument. In Tripurari Pal v. Jagat Tarini Dasi', 40 Cal. 274 (PC), the facts were: A testator after declaring the properties to be debutter for the maintenance of the family idol stated in his will that his son, on attaining majority, would personally conduct the work of the sheba, and if he died his (the testator's) widow would be the shebait and that after her, his daughters by her would be shebaits. The Judicial Committee in a short judgment held that under the will there was an absolute gift of the shebaitship to the son and it was not cut down by anything that followed in the will. On the construction of that will, their Lordships held that the son got an estate of inheritance in the shebaitship. This judgment was construed and relied upon by a Bench of this Court consisting of Madhavan Nair and Stodart JJ. in the case of succession to the trusteeship -- 'Ramachar v. Venkata Rao', 1938-2 Mad L.J. 623. The right to succeed depended upon the construction of the will which was in the following terms: