V. VENKATANARAYANA PILLAI Vs. V. SUBBAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AT the date of the first testamentary instrument, namely, September 8, 1889, the testator, Venkatarama, was sole surviving coparcener of the property here in question, It was ancestral property, but a division had been effected, and of the testator's divided share he had no coparcener. He could, therefore, dispose of it. Under those circumstances he made a will dated September 8, 1889, which contained an appointment of his wife and his daughter to be executrixes, and for the present purpose consisted of two parts, namely, (1.) a disposal of the property in a certain way, and (2.) an authority to his widow in a certain event to take a son by adoption.

(2.) HE had, and it appears by the will that he had, nominated as his son Venkatakrishna, who was a son of his daughter Rajammal, but he had not completed the adoption. By his will he directed that if he should die before completing the adoption his wife Subbammal should, after his death, complete the necessary ceremonies and take the said grandson in adoption, and his will contained the following clause: " In case any danger may happen to my grandson Siranjeevi Venkatakrishna Pillai during the lifetime of my wife Subbammal who is one of my executrixes my wife Subbammal may according to her wishes take in adoption one of my aforesaid daughter Rajammal's sons, and give my properties to that son."

(3.) ON February 9, 1890, the testator completed the adoption of Venkatakrishna. Another member of the coparcenary thus entered the joint family, and when the testator subsequently died the property was ancestral property, of which he was not at that date competent to dispose. In this sense, and to this extent, the will of September 8, 1889, became ineffectual.