SURYANARAYANA RAO Vs. RAJESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against a direction in the final decree in a suit for administration, O.S.No.17 of 1939, that an extent of ac. 9-97 cents belonging to the testator, Rupakula Venkatappaiah, shall be delivered to the trustees of Kanakadurga temple, Vijayawada.

(2.) The facts relevant for purposes of this appeal are these: "One Rupakula Venkatappaiah executed a will in respect of his properties onJ17- 4-1939 and died the next day. Under the will he gave many legacies and made his son, Rupakula Suryanarayana, a residuary legatee. He appointed his son and two others Apparao and Mohana Rao, sons of one Balabhadrapatruni Venkatappaiah as his executors One of the bequests he made, which is relevant for purposes of this appeal was as follows:

(3.) After contest a preliminary decree was passed on 30-8-1943 providing inter alia that an account be taken of the assets left behind by Rupakula Venkatappaiah. at the time of his death, that an account be taken of the assets due to the plaintiff and all other creditors and legatees of the deceased Rupakula Venkatappaiah, that an account be taken of the funeral and testa nentary expenses of the said deceased Rupakula Venkatappayya, that enquiries be made with regard to the liabilities of the said Rupakula Venkaappayya by publication of notices in the Fort St. George Gazette etc., that the estate of the late Rupakula Venkatappayya after discharging the funeral expenses and testamentary expenses an, his other lawful liabilities 02 applied in pursuance of the provisions made in his will Exhibit A and for discharging the said liabilities, properties other than those which are subjected to specific be quests in the will be sold first as far as possible 10 that specific bequests be given effect to, etc. The other provisions are not necessary for purposes of this appeal. office it to state that one Sri T.V Subrahnianyam, interim Administrator already appointed in the suit was appointed Receiver. The suit stood posted to 1-3-1.949 for passing the final decree. Thereafter the 1st defendant in the suit. filed I.A. 15.5 of 1955 on 19-1-1955 praying for delivery of 9-97 cents bequeathed for charitable purposes at recited in para 9 of the will afore quoted. He alleged that legacy was void in law as it was vague and uncertain. He alleged in the affidavit filed in support of the petition thus: "The legacy is void in law and is vague and uncertain The legacy states that Brahmins who visit Kanaka Durga Devalayam should be fed. The object of charity is indefinite body of persons and no place of feeding is limited and further the legacv is not made to any legal entity or institution. The legacy as lands, is so uncertain that any part of the country can be said to come within the category, on the pretext that he proposes to visit Kanaka Durgalayam and hence the feeding of any Brahmin in any part of this world could be done. So it amounts that the feeding can be made at any place in the world and to any Brahmin who merely asserts that he is going to Vijayawada Kanaka Durgalayatn, which statement is not capable of proof. As I submitted above the legacy leads to such absurd situation. Hence it is void, (para 4)