SUBBULAKSHMI Vs. S. CHOCKKALINGAM PILLAI AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner herein filed O.S.No. 213 of 1977 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Udamalpet for declaraton of her title to the suit property-and for direction to the third defendant to deliver possession of the property to her. Her case was that the property belonged to her maternal grand-father Velayutham Pillai of Kinathukadavu, Pollachi Taluk. The said Velayutham Pillai had two sons, Nanjappa and Samasundara. The first defendant in the suit was the son of Somasundaram, while the second defendant was the grand-son of Nanjappa, being the son of Kuppusamy Pillai. Velayutham bequeathed the suit property in favour of his invalid daughter Valliammal while she was a minor under the registered will dated 4.6.1922. Velayutham died on 13.5.1923. According to the plaintiff, the property vested absolutely with Valliammal and she was in enjoyment of the same after the death of Velayuthan. Valliammal died on 19.7.1975 and the plaintiff became the absolute owner thereof. Defendants 1 and 2 were interfering with her possession. The third defendant was her tenant. The suit was resisted by the defendants on the ground that Valliammal got only a life interest and the will provided that after her lifetime, the property should go to her male heirs. According to them, the Will also provided that if there was no male issue for Valliammal, the property should be taken by the male heirs of Velayutham Pillai. Thus, according to the defendants, when Valliammal died without a male issue, the property became that of defendants 1 and 2, who were the male heirs of Velayutham.

(2.) The trial court negatived the case of the defendants and held that on a construction the Will, the property was given absolutely to Valliammal, whose death it devolved on the plaintiff. The suit was was decreed with reference to the relief of declaration of plaintiffs title. Insofar as possession was concerned, the trial court held that she must proceed against the third defendant under the special law relating to cultivating tenants. Against the said decree, defendants 1 and 2 filed A.S.No. 1068 of 1978 in this Court. The appeal was dismissed by a learned single Judge of this Court by judgment dated 20.8.1983. The learned Judge, while holding that what was given to Valliammal under the Will was only a life estate, held that it got enlarged under Sec. 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act and thereby Valliammal became the absolute owner of the property. Thus, the learned Judge confirmed the decree passed by the trial Court.

(3.) Defendants 1 and 2 filed Letters Patent Appeal No. 36 of 1984, which was admitted on 18.4.1984. In a petition for stay pending the appeal, notice and interim stay were ordered.