TIRUCHENDUR SRI SUBRAMANIASWAMI TEMPLE Vs. P RAMASWAMI PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is the idol of a Hindu temple at Kasba Tiruchendur in the Province of Madras. THE appeal arises out of a slut brought in the name of the idol by the trustee of the temple in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin for a decree for possession of properties which had formed the estate of one Minakshisundaram Pillai, who died on May 21, 1919. THE appellant claimed to be entitled to the estate under a will executed by the deceased. THE Subordinate Judge construed the will against the appellant and his decision was upheld by the High Court of Madras. THE appeal is from the decree of the High Court.

(2.) THE will of the testator is dated May 20, 1919, and reads as follows : I am now an in-patient in the hospital at Madura, having undergone an operation for carbuncle. As I have suspicions about my surviving, I have bequeathed to my son, Pieha Pillai, the right to all my properties and moneys, etc. , and he shall solely enjoy them. If he or his son has no child, the said properties shall pass to Subrarnaniaswaroi at Tirucheudur. On the next day the testator added this codicil: This is written in continuation of the will executed yesterday, the 20th instant. With the money got from my moneys and pro-notes, etc, my elder brothers shall purchase immovable properties such as lands, etc. , in the name of my son.

(3.) ON November 10, 1932, the appellant instituted the suit out of which the appeal arises. There were 23 defendants. Defendants Nos. 1 to 22 were sued as being in possession of different parts of the estate. The 23rd defendant was alleged to be an alienee of one of the other defendants in respect of a part of the estate. The appellant claimed that on the death of Picha Pillai he became entitled to the entire estate. During the pendency of the suit the appellant entered into written agreements of compromise with defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11.He settled with the 13th defendant out of Court and abandoned his claim for relief against defendants Nos. 17 to 22, on liberty being given to him to file fresh suits against them.