KRISHNAMMAL Vs. R. LAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the respondent in O.P. No. 142 of 1948, against an order of Subba Rao, J., granting a succession certificate to the petitioner in the original petition in respect of the Government securities, more particularly specified in the schedule attached to the petition.

(2.) THE securities originally stood registered in the name of one Subramania Ayyar. He died on the nth December, 1911, leaving behind him his father, Anantarama Iyer, his widow Ammani Ammal, and two daughters, Krishnammal and Rajammal. The respondent in. this appeal, who was the petitioner in the original petition is Lakshmi Ammal, the daughter of Rajammal. On the 26th September, 1912, Anantarama Iyer executed a deed of settlement whereunder he provided that after his death his daughter -in -law, Ammani Ammal should enjoy the securities for her life and after her death they should be possessed and enjoyed in equal half shares by his grand -daughters, Krishnammal and Rajammal for life. On the death of any of the said granddaughters, it was provided by the deed that the properties possessed and enjoyed by each granddaughter should devolve upon her male issue absolutely, if any, then living, and in default of such male issue the female issue should take absolutely. After the death of Subramania Aiyar, Ammani Ammal applied for a succession certificate in respect of these securities, and with the consent of Anantarama Iyer a succession certificate was issued in her favour, the power being limited to realisation of interest on the securities. There is an endorsement to this effect on the Government promissory notes: Ammani Ammal died on the 28th September, 1944. Rajammal predeceased Ammani Ammal and left behind her her only daughter, Lakshmi Ammal, the respondent in the appeal. Busing her claim on the settlement deed of Anantarama Aiyar the respondent claimed that she was entitled to one half of the total value of the Government securities mentioned in the schedule and also to receive her share of the interest payable thereon. In paragraph 3 of the petition the respondent alleged that the Government of India bonds and securities were held by the Reserve Bank of India (Public Debt Office), Madras Branch, and that she was informed by the Reserve Bank of India, Madras Branch, in their communication dated 19th February, 1948, that she should obtain from the High Court of Madras a succession certificate in support of her claim to deal with the securities and forward the same to them. In paragraph 9 of the petition she however alleged that the original bonds were in the custody of Krishnammal, daughter of Subramania Aiyar. In paragraph 4 she disclosed the relationship between the various persons and stated that Krishnammal alone was alive and that she resided at South Street, Fort, Trivandrum. She stated in the petition the substance of the settlement deed and the facts entitling her to the certificate claimed by her.

(3.) THE petition was tried by Subba Rao, J. and before him the question of jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the petition was argued on the basis of certain agreed facts, and the learned Advocate -General appearing for the appellant confined his arguments before the learned Judge to the question of jurisdictior of the Court to entertain the petition. Judgment was pronounced by the learned Judge on the question of jurisdiction on 5th August, 1948. At that time it was represented to the learned Judge that the learned Advocate -General when he argued the question of jurisdiction was under the impression that he was arguing only a preliminary point, and that there were also other contentions raised in the counter affidavit which had to be argued. On this representation being made the learned Judge naturally directed the matter to be posted for fresh arguments on I2tb August, 1948. When this matter came up for further hearing before the learned Judge, the respondent in the petition, i.e., the present appellant, through her counsel stated that she had no objection for the succession certificate being issued to the petitioner, Lakshmi Ammal, without prejudice to the rights of the parties. Mr. Pattabhiraman appearing for Lakshmi Ammal also agreed to withdraw his allegation in paragraph 7 of the petition, that the petitioner would be entitled to the other half of the securities also on the death of Krishnammal, as it was not necessary for the disposal of the application. On this admission the learned Judge directed the issue of a succession certificate to the petitioner, as he had already found by his order, dated 5th August, 1948, that this Court has jurisdiction to entertain the application.