BAKIAM ALIAS MUTHUSWAMI, MINOR BY HIS GUARDIAN AND NATURAL PATERNAL GRAND FATHER T.A. BAKIAM PILLAI Vs. A. VALLI AMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal arises out of a suit for partition instituted by the first respondent, Valli Ammal, the only question involved in it being the true construction of Exhibit A -I, a deed of settlement. Before referring to the facts that have led up to this litigation, we shall set out the genealogical tree of the settlor's family, as that would facilitate a due appreciation of the contents of the document,

(2.) THE settlement deed took effect immediately after execution. The settlor, and after her, her son and daughter -in -law enjoyed the properties in accordance with the terms thereof. So too, the grandsons. But, of the two grandsons, viz., Raju and Minakshisundaram, the latter predeceased the former. That was in the year 1919. He left behind him his widow, Valli Ammal (the first respondent to this appeal) and a son, Muthuswami, through her. The son, however, did not live long. He died about a year after his father's death leaving behind his mother, Valliammal, as his heir. Raju died in 1952, having, during his lifetime, taken in adoption Bakiam, (the appellant herein).

(3.) MR . N. Suryanarayana, appearing for the appellant, in the course of an able and interesting argument, contended that, under the deed of settlement, Raju and Minakshisundaram obtained no interest in the corpus of the property, but what they obtained was only an interest for life in the usufruct, the corpus being reserved for their children who were to take it as a class when the time for distribution came, which, under the document, was fixed to be the time of the death of the survivor amongst the two grandsons; and, as at that time there was no one living answering the description as regular issue, of Raju and Minakshisundaram except the appellant, he alone would be entitled to the properties under the settlement.