S RM A MEENAKSHI IYER DIED Vs. LAKSHMANAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Ayyavoo Iyer had two wives. By the first wife he had three daughters, Peria Kuppammal, Chinna Kuppammal and Negalammal. By the second wife he had one daughter Pankajavalliammal. He had no male issue though he was very much aspiring for it. At the age of 55 he thought it better to make an arrangement with regard to his properties and executed a Will on 11-11-1926, which is marked as Ex. A-2 in the present proceedings. By that Will, he appointed an executor for administering the estate after his death. He had referred to his intention to adopt a son during his life time, if possible and made a provision in the event of such adoption. He had also provided in the Will by Clause (9), which is relevant for our purpose, that for his daughters who were existing at that time and daughters who may be born thereafter an immovable property shall be purchased at the rate of Rs. 3,000/- per head from out of the family funds. He provided that the said purchase shall be made for the daughters through the first wife within two years after his death and for the daughter through his second wife four years after her marriage. A similar provision was made with regard to the daughters who may be born thereafter.

(2.) ON the 29th of November, 1926 he executed another document called additional Will in which he referred to the fact that he had adopted a boy by name Meenakshi Iyer. That document is marked as Ex. A-3. By the said document he had only confirmed the provisions contained in Ex. A-2 and appointed the natural father of the adopted son as another executor to function jointly with the executor already appointed under the earlier Will. He died on 3-12-1926. The two executors did not carry out the direction given by the testator to purchase properties for Rs. 3,000/- to each of the three daughters through the first wife within a period of two years. However, on 29-6-1936 they executed a settlement deed, marked as Ex. A-1 in favour of Peria Kuppammal, the first daughter through the first wife of the testator, settling certain properties in her favour. As per the recitals in the said document, the property was being settled pursuant to the direction contained in the Will executed by Ayyavoo Iyer and the property was given to the settlee who shall enjoy the same by paying all taxes and charges. It was however added that as she had so no santhathi by them, she shall enjoy the same during her life time and if she got any male or female heirs by the grace of God they shall take the house property after her life time from generation to generation. It was also stated that if she had no santhathi during her life time she had only a right to enjoy the property but no right to encumber or alienate the same in any manner.

(3.) IN May, 1937 Peria Kuppammal's husband adopted a boy who is the 1st defendant in the present suit. Peria Kuppammal died in 1970. IN 1971 i.e. on 22-10-1971 the suit out of which these proceedings arise was filed by Meenakshi Iyer, the adopted son of Ayyavoo Iyer. He prayed for a declaration that the suit property belonged to him absolutely after the death of Peria Kuppammal on 30-1-1970 and for recovery of possession from the defendants. Several contentions were raised by the defendants. The plaintiff had also challenged the validity of the adoption of the 1st defendant. Equally, the defendants had challenged the adoption of the plaintiff by Ayyavoo Iyer. But those issues were not pressed at the time of trial. Ultimately, the trial court found that the plaintiff was entitled to get the property after the death of Peria Kuppammal as she was entitled only to life estate. Consequently, the suit was decreed.