OLATI PULLIAH CHETTY Vs. EVARADARAJULU CHETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The suit was brought by one Olati Pulliah to recover possession of certain properties which belonged to his father's elder brother Olati Lakshmiah. Lakshmiah died in 1892 leaving a will. It is the plaintiff's case, that under that will the testator's adopted grandson Kuppiah and his widowed daughter-in-law Ranganaikammal took a joint life interest in the properties left by him, and that on the death of Kuppiah without any issue in April 1893 Ranganaikammal took the whole property only, as a tenant for life; that in any event the will did not give her anything more than a widow's estate under Hindu Law; and on her death, therefore, in April 1904, the plaintiff and his deceased father Veeriah became entitled to the property left by Lakshmiah.

(2.) The defendants who claim under a will executed by Ranganaikammal answer that it is not open to the plaintiff to rely upon the will as the nature of the interest taken by her under it was in dispute in a suit brought by her against the plaintiff's father Veeriah to which the plaintiff was also made a party, and the dispute was settled by a razinamah between the parties which was Embodied in the decree passed in that suit.

(3.) They also deny that Ranganaikammal took only a widow's interest as alleged by the plaintiffs. That suit, C.S. No. 124 of 1894, was brought by Ranganaikammal as the "sole owner of the whole" of the testator's property under his will with the exception of a certain portion left for charity, against the plaintiff's father and a son-in-law of the testator who were her co-executors under the will, for a declaration that she had become "solely entitled to and to the possession of the property " and for other reliefs. These defendants denied her claim to the sole ownership. The parties having agreed to settle their disputes, the plaintiff, then a minor, and the daughter of the testator were made parties to the suit, and leave of the Court having been obtained to enter into the compromise on the plaintiffs behalf, a razinamah was entered into by which the property in suit was acknowledged to be the absolute property of Ranganaikammal in accordance with the terms of the will; she also obtained the right of adoption, and in return she gave the plaintiff and his father a house and a sum of Rs. 3,500, and to the daughter of the testator a house and a sum of Rs. 1,000. She also agreed to pay to the plaintiff, as directed by the will, Rs. 500 for his marriage. A decree was passed in accordance with the terms of the razinamah, and a deed of release was also executed by the plaintiff and his father. After the death of Ranganaikammal and his father, the plaintiff now sues to recover possession from the respondents before this Court who claim under a will left by her.