KARNAM RAMAMMA Vs. PEDDINENI VENKATALAKSHMAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question to decide in this appeal is one of construction of a will executed by one Veerappa Naidu, a Kamma of Nellore. What we have to ascertain is whether the testator's intention was to bequeath a share of his property to a designated person (persona designata) Sankariah, who happened to be his sister Venkatalakshmamma's son or whether Sankariah's marriage with the testator's daughter Ramamma, the second defendant, was a condition precedent without which the bequest was not to take effect. The will was executed on the 27 April, 1923, and the testator died two days later. Sankariah died before his marriage on the 22nd June, 1925, leaving his mother as his heir. He was about 13 years old then. Ramamma was subsequently married to Gopal Naidu, the third defendant in the suit. Venkatalakshmamma brought the suit out of which this appeal arises for recovery of the share bequeathed by her brother Veerappa Naidu to her son Sankariah under the will Ex. A.

(2.) The relevant portions of the will are as hereunder: I am now ill in body and apprehend that I may not live. As I have no male issue and as I have a female issue by name Ramamma, I have brought to my house five years ago Peddineni Sankariah, son of my own uterine sister Venkatalakshmamma and I have been keeping him in my house and giving him education with a view that a marriage may be celebrated by giving my daughter to him and that these two might become entitled to and enjoy the movable and immovable properties specified therein. I have kept him as the huqdar for the office of the Village Munsif in Vasilli held by me and kept him as illatom....Out of the remaining movable and immovable properties owned by me, my daughter Ramamma and my illatom son-in-law, Sankariah, shall, after my lifetime, enjoy with absolute right two shares out of the four shares. I have arranged the said Sankariah shall have a right to the post of Village Munsif of Vasilli Village which belongs to me. My wife, my own mother and father shall retain in their possession the other two shares, bring and keep in our house my wife's brother Gola Narasiah, give my uterine younger sister Venkamma (another sister) in marriage to him and the said Gola Narasiah shall, after the lifetime of my father and mother, have a right to one share, The other one share shall, after the lifetime of my wife Lakshmamma, pass to my daughter and son-in-law. She shall be in enjoyment of them till then.

(3.) The question to decide is, as we have stated in the beginning, whether Veerappa intended to bequeath two shares mentioned in the portion marked A-l to his daughter Ramamma or to his sister's son Sankariah irrespective of the fact whether they were married to each other or not. In the portion of the will marked A-2, another share was bequeathed by Veerappa to his daughter and to his son- in-law on the happening of a contingency, that is, of his wife's death. It would be noticed that in the latter portion of the will (A-2) Sankariah has not been mentioned by name while his name was specifically mentioned in the portion marked A-l. There is no doubt however that the reference in both places in the will is to the same person. No exception can also be taken to the argument that if the property devolved on Sankariah at the time of the testator's death, Sankariah and Ramamma would not take the two shares as joint tenants, there being no right of survivorship as between them, but merely as tenants in common and that their shares would be in the absence of any direction to the contrary equal. The answer to the questions whether the bequest to Sankariah was to take effect on his marriage with Ramamma or whether it was contingent on his marrying Veerappa's daughter would depend on the fact whether Sankariah was described as an illatom son-in-law for purposes of identification merely or whether the existence of relationship of an illatom son-in-law was regarded by Veerappa to be a condition precedent without which the bequest could not be held to be operative. If the testator's intention is found to be that Sankariah should take the bequest only in his character as illatom son-in-law, the bequest must be held to fail as the presumed condition on which Veerappa wanted Sankariah to take the bequest will not be found to exist. To ascertain that intention we must now examine the relevant portions of the will which we have already quoted in extenso.