M SIVAGNANAM Vs. S RAJESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHOULD the 1928 will of the testator who died in the year 1929 be construed in the light of the provisions of theHindu Succession Act, 1956 and whether the testator intended that the ultimate bequest should go to the heirs of his son both male and female are the questions to be decided here.

(2.) ONE Subramania Pillai executed a Will Ex.A-2 dated 22.05.1928. The recitals of the Will will be extracted later. Broadly the intention of the testator appears to have been to protect the properties from being dissipated by his son Manickam who according to the testator was weak and liable to be taken advantage of by others. Therefore, he gave his son a life interest in the property without powers of alienation with the absolute interest to be taken by the heirs of his son. There are other clauses which deal with what should happen if the son Manickam died issueless. On 1.7.1963 under Ex.A-4 Manickam executed a settlement deed in respect of the properties bequeathed under the Will in favour of various persons. Manickam had two wives.

(3.) FROM the additional evidence, it is seen that item 19 is purchased in the name of Pappammal in the year 1932, item 21 has been purchased on 25.6.1935 in the name of Pappammal and item 5 has been purchased in the name of Pappammal on 3.1.1936. Therefore, according to the learned counsel, actually the dispute is with regard to items 1, 3 and 4, 6 to 20 and 22 and 23.