A.T. RAMASWAMI NAICKER Vs. GANAPATHIAMMAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals arise out of the suit, Original Suit No. 20 of 1959, on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court, Ramanathapuram, at Madurai, and relate to the estate of one Rangaswami Naicker who died on 28th March, 1927. The three plaintiffs in the suit are his only children, all daughters, and the first: defendant is his divided nephew. The other defendants to the suit are sons of the first defendant. Rangaswami Naicker's brother Thirupathy Naicker had died leaving the first defendant and another son who died subsequently both minors. The partition between Rangaswami Naicker and the first defendant was in September, 1921, during the minority of the first defendant amicably brought about and fair in all respects. The evidence shows that despite the partition, the uncle and nephew were living together with affection towards each other. Rangaswami Naicker had taken three wives in the hope of having a male issuer but each wife had only a female child, the three plaintiffs in the suit. At the time of his death, the first plaintiff was about five years old, the second plaintiff about six years old, and the third plaintiff just 11/2 years old. All the wives were dead and the first defendant himself was then about 21 years old. The evidence is that the step -mother of the first defendant was looking after the family of Rangaswami Naicker and was also bringing up these motherless children. The principal contest in the case is about the genuineness of a will stated to have been left by the deceased Rangaswami Naicker. It was executed by him on the very day he died, that is on 28th March, 1927, and under it the first defendant took possession and control of the estate of Rangaswami Naicker on his death. The suit impugning the will and claiming against the first defendant possession of the properties of Rangaswami Naicker and an account of the management of the properties and realisation of the assets has been instituted only on 6th April, 1959. Even the youngest of the three plaintiffs, the third plaintiff had become major in 1944 itself. The plaint sets out a family arrangement, sometime after 1932, consequential on the attack of the will as forgery whereby it is stated it was agreed that the first defendant should' manage the properties of the deceased Rangaswami Naicker, collect the outstandings due to the estate, augment the income, account for the same and hand over possession of the properties and monies to the plaintiffs whenever demanded giving up his rights under the will set up by him.

(2.) Under the will Exhibit B -1 which vested all the properties of Rangaswami Naicker in the first defendant, certain obligations were imposed on him for the benefit of the three plaintiffs. At the time of his death the testator was possessed of about 42 acres of land and about Rs. 27,000 in outstandings. The will provides inter alia (a) that the first defendant should bring up at his expense the three plaintiffs till they attain majority/ (b) that he shall get them married meeting the marriage expenses; (c) that each of the plaintiffs should be given Rs. 1,000 worth of jewels, two acres of well -irrigated lands and five acres of rain -fed lands and also a sum of Rs. 6,000 on their becoming majors; and (d) that a sum of Rs. 4,000 shall be spent on three charities, besides an endowment for the construction of a Vinayagar temple. The learned Subordinate Judge, on an analysis of the documentary evidence in the case and probabilities upheld the genuineness and truth of the will and found against the family arrangement put forward by the plaintiffs. He took up for consideration the alternative claim of the plaintiffs of seven acres of land for each of the plaintiffs and the cash of Rs. 6,000 for each of them. He found that the claim -in respect of the lands had been satisfied by an arrangement which the first defendant put forward. He rejected the satisfaction pleaded by the first defendant in respect of the money claims of the plaintiffs and decreed a sum of Rs. 6,000 to -each of the plaintiffs with interest at 51/2 per cent, per annum from the dates of the plaintiffs attaining majority. The first defendant has preferred Appeal Suit No. 214 of 1961 to the extent of the decree against him and the plaintiffs have preferred Appeal Suit No. 462 of 1961 to the extent they have lost.

(3.) To take up for consideration the question of the genuineness of the will, We may immediately state that there cannot be the slightest doubt about the same. The first defendant has asserted rights under the will immediately after the death of the testator and had made the will public within a few days of the death when it became necessary to assert his rights under the will. To start with, viewed in the background of the traditions, habits of life, thought and inclinations of the class of people to which the testator belonged, particularly at that period, with their robust outlook on life, there is nothing unnatural or unusual in the terms of the will.