POPPI REDDY Vs. ELLAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE only question in this appeal is whether under Ex. A-1 the legatee gets absolute estate or a life estate over the property bequeathed to her. One Mandaiyan @ Siddhi Reddy executed Ex. A-1 on 14. 5. 1948 bequeathing his properties, one of them being the suit property. THE suit property is given to his daughter Poppammal. At that time, she was a minor and her guardians were directed to manage the property during her minority. After the marriage with one Ellamma Reddy, herself and her husband executed a sale deed in favour of the first defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,000 on 7. 4. 1956. THE plaintiffs are the children of the said Poppammal. THEy have filed the suit for declaration of their title to the property and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit property in favour of any other person.

(2.) THE trial court held that the estate given to poppammal was only a limited estate and the alienation by her will not bind the plaintiffs after her lifetime. However, the trial court dismissed the suit as premature in view of the facts that Poppammal was alive and that she was entitled that Poppammal was alive and that she was entitled to enjoy the property during her lifetime. On appeal, the learned appellate Judge has confirmed the finding that Poppammal has got a limited estate under Ex. A-1 but, he granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring that the plaintiffs are entitled to possession of the suit property after the lifetime of Popammal. THE first defendant was directed to deliver possession of the suit property to the plaintiffs after the lifetime of Popammal. THE prayer for injunction was rejected. THE cross objection filed by the defendants as against the findings rendered by the trial court was also dismissed.

(3.) IT is urged by learned counsel for the respondent that the testator has not used the expression while giving the property to his daughter but, he has used the same expression when he has dealt with another property which was given to his wives. In the later part of the will, the testator has dealt with another property which he has chosen to given to his wives Poppammal and Paiyammal. While doing so, he has stated that they shall enjoy the property during their lifetime absolutely with powers of alienation. No doubt there is a distinction in the language employed by the testator when he gave property to his daughter and another property to his wives. But, it must be remembered that in so far as the daughter is concerned, the testator had already given property to her even before executing the will and he is only referring to the past transaction in the will. In such circumstances, there was no necessity for him to use the expression once again in the will while referring to the giving of the property to the daughter.