(SURYADEVARA) VENKATA KRISHNAYYA Vs. VASIREDDI MADAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These will cases always entail a certain amount of difficulty. Vernacular wills are drawn up inartistically and it may be that in this very will there are certain clauses which are not easily reconcilable with others. The main trouble no doubt has arisen from the fact that this testator contemplated that his daughter should marry his nephew Subbiah in illatom. Unfortunately that project was thwarted by his death. After expressing his wish that the illatom marriage should take place, he says: To the said properties and to my assets and liabilities, my daughter Subbamma and my sister's son Subbiah shall be the kartas (heirs entitled) and they shall be discharging the debts from out of the income of the lands and be supporting my mother and wife.

(2.) It is really a matter of first impression and in this particular case, I not being very familiar with Telugu wills-I have seen plenty of Tamil ones-do not derive much assistance from the other terms of the will. But construing them as best I can it seems to me impossible to accept either of the contentions upon which the respondent must rest his case. The first is that the gift so given to Subbiah was conditional on his marrying this girl. He was the only responsible male in the family, and might well have been selected as an heir in any event. In fact he died when she was only a child. That is the main argument accepted by the learned Judge. Mr. Raghava Rao puts forward another argument that the gift must be construed as a joint tenancy passing by survivorship. I do not agree though, as I say, it is very much a matter of impression. I see nothing in the authorities that can compel me to say that a gift like this is in law, apart from intention, a joint tenancy and, as my learned brother has observed in the course of the argument, joint tenancy is almost unknown among Hindus except in the case of members of an undivided Hindu family. For these reasons I am of opinion that the appeal should be allowed with costs throughout. Ramesam, J.

(3.) I entirely agree. The will we have to consider is Ex. A dated 7 July 1902, executed by one Vasireddi Venkatappiah. He is a Kamma by caste and it is well known that in this caste the custom of illatom prevails. Sometimes among Kammas they even take sister's sons as members of a joint family with them without a marriage. In this will in Clause 2 the testator refers to the fact that he has a daughter aged 3 and a sister who had two sons, of whom the elder, Subbiah, was aged 17. Then he says that his sister's son should be kept as illatom son- in-law and that his daughter Subhamma should be given in marriage to him. By saying that he should be kept as illatom son-in-law, what he apparently meant was that he should be kept in the house with a view to his marrying his daughter when the proper time arrived. So " illatom son-in-law " means intended son-in-law. Then later on in the will we have got this sentence in the same paragraph.: To the said properties and to my assets and liabilities my daughter Subbamma and my sister's son Subbiah shall be karthas (heirs entitled) and they shall be discharging the debts from out of the income of the lands and be supporting my mother and wife.