GOVINDAMMAL Vs. MARIMUTHU PILLAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The plaintiff-appellant is the widow of one of four brothers, who, when all were alive, formed a joint Hindu family. One of the brothers, on his death without issue, left a widow named Alamelu, to whom the other brothers assigned certain lands to be enjoyed for her maintenance. Alamelu has since died, and the plaintiff has brought this suit for a third share of the said immoveable properties. All the four brothers being now dead, one branch is extinct, two branches are represented by sons who are 1st and 2nd defendants, and the 4th branch is represented by the plaintiff. The plaintiff obtained a decree in the District Munsif s Court, but on appeal the District Munsif s decision was reversed and her suit was dismissed with costs.

(2.) After the death of Alamelu s husband, the three remaining brothers are alleged to have become divided, and Exhibit A is evidence of a partition affecting the plaintiff s husband, the 2nd defendant and his father. It has not been made out whether the allotment made to Alamelu was prior to, simultaneous with or subsequent to that partition, and whether it constituted the grant of a widow s estate, a life-estate or a full estate, although prima facie being for her maintenance it was resumable at the death of the grantee (Mayne s Hindu Law, paragraph 395).

(3.) Plaintiff s husband, however, having admittedly predeceased Alamelu, the plaintiff; being a widow, can only succeed to the property which was actually vested in her husband at the time of his death. No fresh right can accrue to her as widow in consequence of the subsequent death of a person to whom he would have been heir if he had lived. Mayne, paragraph 529, and Balamma v. Pullayya 18 M. 163 : 5 M.L.T. 22,