DEVANAI AMMAL Vs. MAHADEVA CHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case one Palani alias Dharmalinga Chetty was entitled to a certain sum of money under a deed of settlement executed by his father and that sum of money was with one Lakshmana Chetty. Lakshmana Chetty, who died in 1908, left a will dated 24 April 1906, whereby he appointed five executors for his estate and directed them inter alia to pay a sum of Rs. 4,000 to the said Palani alias Dharinalinga Chetty (Ex. A). Defendant 2 was the residuary legatea under the said will. As he was then a minor defendant 1 was thereby appointed his " executor", that is, apparently his guardian.

(2.) Two of the five executors did not accept office, but the other three did and administered the estate. These three were : (1) Venkatachala Mudali, defendant 3 who was alive on the date of this suit but is now dead and represented by respondents 12 to 15 in the second appeal; (2) Kumaraswami Ayyar who died before the suit and whose sons and legal representatives were added as defendants 4 to 6; and (3) Ellappa Chetty who died still earlier and whose sons and legal representatives were added as defendants 7 to 10. Palani alias Dharmalinga Chetty died a minor and unmarried soon after the death of Lakshmana Chetty, leaving the plaintiff, his mother and only heir. The will of Lakshmana Chetty does not provide for the payment of any interest on the sum of Rs. 4,000 directed to be paid to Palani alias Dharmalinga Chetty.

(3.) It appears from Ex. C, proceedings recorded by the three executors of Lakshmana Chetty who entered on their office and defendant 1, the guardian of the residuary legatee on 14 October 1915, that after the death of Palani alias Dharmalinga Chetty there was an arrangement between the plaintiff and them whereby she allowed them to retain and invest the money due to her and pay her interest "either per month. or at any time as suited her." These proceedings and the subsequent proceedings, Ex. D, show that the rate of interest was varying from time to time. The executors paid interest accordingly to the plaintiff on several occasions. They however declined to pay up the principal amount unless she produced a succession certificate.