MUTHUSAMI GURUKKAL Vs. MEENAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts on which we have to give our decision are now undisputed. Gangadara was entitled to an Archaka service in a temple. He was sane at birth, but subsequently became insane. He had an only son, Subbiah. After the son attained majority, the father became insane and died in 1880 without recovering sanity. Subbiah, during this period was in sole possession of the Archaka Office. He predeceased his father. (It is said that he died in 1874). Subbiah left a widow Kuppammal who died in 1911. Gangadara s widow Pappammal died in 1912. Plaintiff sues as reversioner of Subbiah, the son. Defendants are the daughter and grandsons of Gangadara. They are sister and sister s sons of Subbiah. If the property belonged to Subbiah, the defendants being only the sister and sister s sons of the owner will be excluded by the plaintiff. If, on the other hand, Gangadara was the owner at the time of his death, the defendants as his daughter and daughter s sons would exclude the plaintiff. The principal question for decision is whether by Gangadara having become insane, Subbiah became the sole owner by survivorship to the exclusion of his father.

(2.) A subsidiary question is whether the two widows, mother-in-law and daughter-in-law enjoyed the property in such a manner and with such intention as to have prescribed for a half share each.

(3.) The main point for consideration is practically one of first impression. We have to examine the texts of Hindu Law for arriving at a decision. The case was argued with conspicuous ability on both sides as may be expected of the learned Vakils engaged on either side.