ADILATCHUMY AMMAL AND ANR. Vs. RAMASAMY REDDIAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Letters Patent Appeal is against the judgment of Maharajan, J. in S.A. No. 548 of 1973 in which he granted leave to appeal against his own judgment. The relevant facts in this appeal are as follows:

(2.) ADMITTEDLY the suit properly belonged to one Royalu Reddiar. Tinder Exhibit A -1, dated 10th April, 1946, Royalu Reddiar disposed of all his properties under a notarial testament. Royalu Reddiar died issueless. Under the will which he made in a French territory he bequeathed the suit property to' his sister Kamalammal to be enjoyed by her for the term of her life without any power to mortgage, gift or sell the same. He gave his other properties both moveable and Immovable to his wife Adilakshmi Ammal and again granted, a life -estate to her over such properties without any right to alienate them in any manner. After creating such life -estates in favour of his sister and wife, he made the following bequest:

(3.) SUBSTITUTION fideicommissaire has been understood as a disposition by which the first beneficiary is juridical bound by an obligation to conserve during his lifetime the property and to pass on after his death to another beneficiary the subject of the gift or devise on condition that the latter will survive. This is how Article 896 in Code Civil has been understood by Dalloz, the famous author and interpreter of the French Law. This method of disposition enjoins the first beneficiary to conserve the property during his lifetime. Under Article 896, according to Dalloz, the second beneficiary must be alive on the date of the death of the first beneficiary. Such a thing is not present in our disposition. In our view Articles 1040 and 1041 instead of Article 896 of the French Code Civil applies to the facts of this case.