SIVAPRAKASAM PILLAI Vs. SADASIVAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second defendant is the appellant in this appeal. One Arunachalam Pillai, who was previously the owner of the suit properties, executed a Will on 25.9.1929. Under the said will he gave the properties described in A schedule thereto to one Vadivel who was his father's brother's grandson and to one Sivagurunathan, who was a great grandson of his father's brother. THE said property was to be taken by them absolutely. B schedule properties were given to some persons as trustees for utilising the income therefrom for performing certain charities. C schedule properties were given by him to his wife to be taken by her absolutely. In this appeal we are not concerned with either A or C schedule properties. THE only property in dispute is the B schedule properties which are described in the first schedule to the plaint.

(2.) ARUNACHALAM died in 1930 and his wife Parvathi died in 1940, Vadivel died in 1935 and Sivagurunathan died in 1943. After the death of Sivagurunathan, his wife Pattu Achi was in enjoyment and management of one portion of the properties and the other portion was in the management and enjoyment of two sons of Vadivel by name Sadasivam and Thiagarajan who are the plaintiffs in the present suit out of which the Second Appeal arises.

(3.) PATTU Achi died within a few days after the filing of the suit. In the written -statement the second defendant contended that under the Will of Arunachalam, the properties devolved on the respective heirs of Vadivel and Sivagurunathan and as such heir, PATTU Achi had a right to nominate her successor trustee which she did by executing a Will giving the properties to him and appointing him as a trustee. The second defendant also pleaded that PATTU Achi had perfected title to trusteeship by adverse possession and therefore, the suit was not sustainable. Another contention was raised that the suit was bad for non -joinder of other parties who would be entitled to trusteeship.