A C AIYATHURAI CHETTIAR Vs. MUNICIPAL COUNCIL KUMBAKONAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE plaintiffs in O. S. 20 of 1959 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, kumbakonam, have filed this appeal against the decree therein dismissing their suit for a declaration of their title to the properties in suit and for recovery of possession of the same. The claim was made on the basis that the plaintiffs were the reversioners to the estate of their paternal uncle Ranganathan Chettiar, to whom, they stated they succeeded on the death of his widow, Bagirathi on 21-31959. The father of the plaintiffs, Chakrapani Chettiar and Ranganathan Chettiar were brothers. The latter was employed at Jaffna in Ceylon. They effected a partition of their family properties in 19-10-1913. Under the partition Ranganathan chettiar was allotted, besides other properties, two houses to the west of the house allotted to his brother, the eastern one among them being his residential house. On 9-10-1916 Ranganathan Chettiar executed a will, the truth and genuineness of which has not been disputed before us. Under that will, he bequeathed the properties obtained by him at partition to his wife. A substantial part of the controversy in this case turns on the construction to be placed on this will. The testator died shortly after the execution of the will. Bagirathi entered into immediate possession of all the properties; but Chakrapani Chettiar did not give her peace. He was the first defendant in O. S. 81 of 1917 in the Subordinate judge's court, Kumbakonam, disputing the genuineness of his brother's will. The court found that the will was true and had been validly executed. After the death of Chakrapani Chettiar, Bagirathi filed O. S. 170 of 1943 in the District Munsif court, Kumbakonam, to avoid a disposition made by her mother-in-law. In that litigation also the validity of the will executed by Ranganathan Chettiar was upheld.

(2.) DURING her lifetime Bagirathi effected a number of alienations in respect of her properties, the principal one being a settlement deed Ex. B. 17 executed in favour of the 4th defendant, Sivaprakasa Chettiar, a cousin-brother of hers and in favour of her sister's children. Sivaprakasa has been living with Bagirathi since then and there is ample evidence in the case to show that he was devoted to her and has been looking after her. It is claimed by him that on 25-1-1959 Bagirathi executed her will, Ex. B. 61, in his favour bequeathing him the two houses specified in schedules A and B to the plaint. The plaintiffs impugn that will. It is also their case that Bagirathi had obtained only an interest for her life under husband's will and that she was not, therefore, competent to dispose of the properties beyond her lifetime.

(3.) THE learned Subordinate Judge did not accept their claim. He held that bagirathi obtained an absolute estate under her husband's will, that the settlement deed and other alienations effected by her were equally valid and that her own will in favour of Sivaprakasa had been proved to be genuine and duly executed.