RUKMANI AMMA Vs. P DEVAKI AMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved over the judgment of the learned District Judge, Nilgiris, made in A.S.No.4 of 1987, affirming the judgment of the trial Court, which granted a decree for declaration, the second defendant has brought forth this second appeal.

(2.) The first respondent/plaintiff sought for the declaratory relief that the deceased first defendant was only having life interest under the Will dated 19.3.1962, executed by late Chathu Nair and for a consequential permanent injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the suit properties to any person. It is averred in the plaint as follows: The plaintiff was the daughter of Chathu Nair, while the first defendant was his wife. The second and third defendants are the daughter and son of Chathu Nair respectively. The properties described in the plaint Schedule belonged to Chathu Nair. He executed a Will on 19.3 .1962, a registered one. He owned the properties other than the properties mentioned in the plaint Schedule. As per the said Will, the first defendant had the life interest over the plaint Schedule properties, which are mentioned in the Will. After the life interest of the deceased first defendant, the properties should devolve on the plaintiff, and after her, it should go to her children. The first defendant was old, and she was making preparations at the instigation of the defendants 2 and 3 to sell the same. The first defendant was negotiating in that regard. In such circumstances, it became necessary to declare that the first defendant was entitled to the life interest only, and hence, the suit.

(3.) The suit was resisted by the defendants, stating that Chathu Nair executed a Will on 20.3.1962; that by a registered sale deed dated 2 8.12.1960, the said Chathu Nair and the defendants 1 and 3 sold the properties to Leelabai, the wife of Mothilal, and thus, on the date of the death of Chathu Nair, he has not left any property under the Will; that apart from that, by a registered sale deed dated 22.6.1975, the first defendant alone purchased the properties from Leelabai, and as such, she became the absolute owner of the properties; that the plaintiff cannot claim any right under the Will, and hence, the claim of the plaintiff was to be denied.