R VENKATASUBBA SASTRI Vs. SANKARAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant is one of two plaintiffs, who sued for possession in respect of Schedule A immoveables and for a declaration of their right in respect of Schedule B outstanding, alleging that they were entitled thereto as reversioners on the death of their cousin Muthulakshmi Animal on 17 June 1928. The two items of immoveable properties had been purchased by Muthulakshmi Ammal, under Exs. 13 and 14, in December 1916. Of the outstandings, item 1, Schedule B was due under a pro-note from defendant 2, items 2 and 3 were due from one Subbier. Defendant 1 set up a will by Muthulakshmi Ammal (Ex. 12) and claimed for himself all the suit properties except item 1, Schedule B in respect of which he alleged a trust. Defendant 2 set up certain rights in respect of item 1, Schedule B under an arrangement (Ex. 11) said to have been made by Muthulakshmi Ammal even before the date of the will. In effect they contended that Muthulakshmi Ammal was absolute owner of the suit properties, that the charity was constituted in pursuance of directions given by her mother with reference to her stridhanam and that the dispositions could not be questioned by the plaintiff. The lower Court accepted these contentions and dismissed the suit. Hence this appeal.

(2.) The deceased Muthulakshmi Ammal was in possession of properties attributable to three sources, namely her husband's estate, her father's estate and her maternal grandfather's estate which came to her mother as stridhanam under a will. The plaintiffs have no manner of right to Muthulakshmi's husband's estate, but they are entitled as reversioners to whatever might be attributable to her father's estate or to her mother's stridhanam estate, because they are the sons of Muthulakshmi's father's brother, and there are no other nearer heirs to the mother's stridhanam. Having regard to the way in which Muthulakshmi and her mother Ponnammal had been dealing with the properties and funds in their possession, it has been by no means easy to decide how much of the suit properties the plaintiffs can claim. The original extent of the maternal grandfather's estate is established with some definiteness by his will, Ex. G, dated 16 May 1891, whereby he absolutely gave away to his daughter certain immoveable properties and outstandings to the extent of about Rs. 2,400. The amount of money which Muthulakshmi derived from her husband's family can also be ascertained from the terms of Ex. H, release deed executed by her in 1907, whereby she released her claim to her husband's estate in consideration of a money payment of Rs. 300. It would appear that she had some jewels also, but there is nothing on record to show whether she converted them into cash or what else she did with them. From Ex. AA it would appear that even during the lifetime of her mother Muthulakshmi had invested certain moneys in her own name and the same document (read with Ex. 6) shows that under this account she withdrew about Rs. 630 in 1912, that is, sometime after her mother's death. It also appears from Ex. AA and from the oral evidence in the present suit, that the mother Ponnammal had money invested in her own name, but it is not possible to fix the amount of cash she had with any exactness, though the documents show that shortly before her death she withdrew Rs. 2,500 odd. It is common ground between the parties that in 1892 Ponnammal got her two daughters married at an expense of about Rs. 3,000; whether this amount was spent out of her husband's estate or her father's estate, it is clear from the evidence that, even after this expenditure, she was in possession of a considerable amount of money which she invested for interest. Ex. F series show that in the years 1897 and 1898 she was paying income-tax of Rs. 10 per annum, and, as the lower Court points out, this justifies the presumption that she must have been receiving between Rs. 500 and Rs. 600 per annum by way of interest.

(3.) The plaint asserts that most of the moneys in Ponnammal's possession belonged to her husband's estate and if any portion thereof might be taken to represent the balance of what she got from her father it states that she made herself a limited owner even in respect thereof by mixing it with the corpus of her husband's estate. This way of stating the plaintiff's claim has led the Court below to criticise at some length and with some force the evidence led on the plaintiff's side to trace into Ponnammal's hands the outstandings alleged to have been left by her husband. The differentiation of what represented the husband's assets of Ponnammal from what represented her father's assets became material before the lower Court in view of the assumption that it was inclined to make that Ponnammal must have made a gift of all her estate to Muthulakshmi; because such a gift could be valid only to the extent of Ponnammal's father's estate as she took the same absolutely under her father's will and not in respect of her husband's estate wherein she had only a widow s, interest. In the view that we are disposed to take on this question of gift by the mother to her daughter, the point of differentiation between Ponnammal's husband's assets and her father's assets loses its importance, for the plaintiffs will be entitled to both sets of properties except to the extent to which a valid gift by Ponnammal to Muthulakshmi may be held to be established.