VENUGOPALA PILLAI Vs. THAYYANAYAKI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first defendant in O. S. No. 61 of 1966 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram is the appellant. In order to appreciate the relevant facts in this Letters Patent appeal, a summary of events that took place long ago is necessary.

(2.) One Sarangapani Pillai married Arumbu Ammal and had a daughter Valliammal by name through her. Sarangapani had a brother Balakrishna by name. Under Ex. A. 1, dated 10-2-1921, Sarangapani executed an unregistered Will conferring a life estate over the suit properties in favour of his wife, Arumbu Ammal and after her death, his properties were to be divided equally between his daughter and his brother Balakrishna. The Will also provided for a contingency that if Valliammal died without leaving any issue, then Balakrishna would be entitled to the entire properties. After the death of Sarangapani Pillai, one of his creditors filed a money suit against Arumbu Ammal, Valliammal and Balakrishna. Balakrishna having been impleaded as a party to that action, he propounded the will, Ex. A-1. Ultimately, the money suit was dismissed. During the pendency or at or about that time, Arumbu Ammal and her daughter Valliammal filed a suit O. S. No. 255 of 1923 in the court of the District Munsif, Kattumannarkudi, for a declaration that Ex. A. 1 was a forgery and that the instrument would not alter the normal rights of succession to the estate of Sarangapani. In that suit, a compromise was entered into on the 24th July, 1924-Ex. A.4. Inter alia, the compromise proved that Arumbu Ammal should enjoy the properties for her life as a widow's estate without any powers of alienation and after her, Valliammal should enjoy the properties for her life equally without any powers of alienation, and if there are any male heirs to Valliammal, they will take the properties absolutely; in case, however, Valliammal does not leave any male heir, Balakrishna should take the properties absolutely. Valliammal died issuless in the year 1940 and Arumbu Ammal took the first defendant in adoption on 3-11-1947. Balakrishna died on 8-1-1963. Thereafter, under Exs. B 2 and B 3, Arumbu Ammal settled some of the properties and willed away some of the remaining properties in favour of the first defendant and died on 16-5-1966. On the death of Arumbu Ammal, the plaintiffs who are heirs of Balakrishna filed the present action claiming their entitlement to the properties as under the compromise deed Ex. A. 4 read with Ex. A.1, and questioned the legality and propriety of Arumbu Ammal's acts in having settled or testamentary disposed of the properties under Exs. B 2 and B3. Their specific contention was that the estate which was in the possession of Arumbu Ammal as a widow's estate without any contemporaneous powers of alienation did not enlarge itself into an absolute estate by reason of S. 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act 1956.

(3.) This was resisted by the first defendant on various grounds amongst which the surviving contention which claims our attention is that under the compromise Ex. A. 4, Arumbu Ammal secured rights pursuant to her preexisting right as a widow for being maintained for life from out of the estate of her husband and in consequence, such an estate vested in her and it was admittedly in her possession on the date when Central Act 30 of 1956 was passed and it automatically enlarged itself into an absolute estate and, therefore. Exs. B 2 and B.3 are valid instruments which Arumbu Ammal could execute during her lifetime.