VASANTHARAO AMMANNAMMA Vs. VIJIAPURAPU VENKATA KODANDA RAO PANTHULU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question for determination in this appeal is, what is the nature of the interest taken by the plaintiff and by her sons under the will of her father Maddirala Buchi Sundara Rao Pantulu Garu dated 26 July, 1899. It is the case of the plaintiff that she took an absolute estate in the properties bequeathed to her. It is the case of the first defendant that she took only a life interest and there was a vested remainder in favour of her sons defendants 2 and 3 and her deceased son Bayanna Pantulu whose sons are defendants 4 to 6. The seventh defendant is the son of the third defendant. The suit itself was filed for a declaration that the plaintiff got an absolute estate in the said properties and that the attachment effected by the first defendant of the interest of defendants 2 to 7 in the property in execution of a decree obtained by him in O.S. No. 36 of 1930 on the file of the Subordinate Judge's Court of Vizagapatam is invalid. The learned Subordinate Judge on a construction of the will held that the plaintiff did not take an absolute estate and dismissed the suit. It is this decision which is challenged in appeal by the plaintiff.

(2.) The main provisions of the will so far as they are material for the decision of this appeal run thus: Out of the aforestated ancestral lands in Dimile and other villages, the one-ninth share of lands to which I am entitled, shall be enjoyed after my death by my wife till her death, and after her death it shall pass to Sundara Rao Pantulu Garu, son of my second elder brother Maddirala Kamaji Rao Pantulu Garu, deceased. My self-acquired properties...the silver and gold and other movables belonging to me - all the properties aforesaid shall, on my death, be enjoyed by my wife till her death and after her death, they shall pass to my daughter. Thereafter, they shall pass to my grandsons through my daughter. As stated hereunder, the debts due by me to outsiders, should be discharged hereafter from the annual income derived from the said properties mentioned above. After discharging all the said debts, the person who shall be enjoying the said properties as aforestated shall pay to my four granddaughters each a sum of Rs. 25 per annum towards pasupukunkuma.

(3.) The contention of Mr. Somasundaram on behalf of the plaintiff is that the words of disposition in her favour, namely, "after her (wife s) death, they shall pass to my daughter" confer an absolute estate. It is now settled law that there is no presumption that a gift to a female means a limited gift or carries with it the effect of creating an estate exactly similar to a widow's estate under the law of inheritance. Vide the dictum of Mitter, J., approved by the Privy Council in Surajmani V/s. Rabi Nath Ojha (1907) 18 M.L.J. 7 : L.R. 15 I.A. 17 : I.L.R. 30 All. 84 (P.C.). This presumption was given effect to in Ramachandra Rao V/s. Ramachandra Rao (1918) 36 M.L.J. 306 : I.L.R. 42 Mad. 283, where a gift by a husband to his wife simpliciter was held to confer an absolute estate. The words used in the will in that case were "my senior wife and junior wife shall each take a half." Seshagiri Aiyar, J., remarked in the course of the judgment thus: Unless there is an express or implified qualification to the contrary, the donor must be deemed to have conveyed all that he was possessed of in the property granted.